Congregation stands up for same-sex marriage

My issue with the same sex marriage is that it "forces" an education upon younger children in public schools that they don't need to learn. On one note it is an affront to what is nature by a scientific standpoint. Reproduction does require a male and a female. It is therefore by definition a "deviant" behavior. I do not believe in deviant behavior being taught in schools.

QUOTE:

"If marriage is redefined to be genderless, then same-sex marriage must be taught as being the same as traditional marriage. That is exactly what happens in other states like Massachusetts. Children as young as second graders have been taught in public schools that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are simply different expressions of the same thing. Massachusetts schools have used books such as “King and King” to instruct second graders about homosexual marriage. This is the story of how a prince married another prince and went on to rule the Kingdom. When parents objected to this instruction and sued, the federal courts ruled they had no right to notice or to pull their children out of class."

http://www.standformarriagemaine.com/?page_id=119

There is NO reason why our legislature can't just expand a domestic partnership law to give same sex unions the same legal protections that marriage gives to people of the opposite sex. One is "marriage" one is a "domestic union/partnership" My question is, is it really about rights that a domestic partnership could grant if done right? Or, is it about just "insisting" on having the word "marriage" redefined? I don't see why this "lifestyle" choice which is deviant behavior has to be forced in schools. People say that BDSM is a "lifestyle" and I don't think that should be taught in schools either. I believe that equality is for all and that "marriage" does not have to be re-defined genderless to do it. I personally intend to vote YES on 1.

MaineMom73 The new law has nothing written in it regarding education in the public schools. The legislature passed a bill in 2005 requiring administrators get parental consent for the teaching of specific issues (sex education) in schools. They are to provide the content of what is being taught and parents have the option of opting theri children out. If they do so they need to write that they have provided age-appropriate instruction to their children. Students will not be punished with lower grades for opting out.

1) Massachusetts case (Parker) had nothing to do with same-gender marriage - it had to do with a parent who stated he had not received notification about a picture book being sent home (not 'taught' in the classroom) dealing with families that had pictures of same-gender couples. He had spoken to the school board previous to meeting with school administration. He was informed that the picture book regarding families was not sex education and therefore did not require parental notification, however the books that would be sent home with children were available for viewing by parents at an open house. The topics that would be covered were also available to parents. Mr. Parker decided that if he was not under arrest after he refused to leave that he would not leave - thus he was arrested. Interestingly, massresistance (a group that wishes to reinstate discrimination) arrived at the school and provided pictures on their website of Mr. Parker being arrested - wonder how they know this was happening?

Neither of the books that were used in Massachusetts were in any way shape or form 'sexual' in nature.

2) Again "King and King" was not part of the sex education curriculum - thus did not require parental consent. It was a child who chose the book out of a group of books. Parental consent is required for "sex education", not families not 'weddings' - this is a scare tactic being used and children have been used.

It is very sad that gay and lesbian citizens are thought of only in terms of 'sexuality'. There were and are some who view women as "sexual" objects and good for one thing only - what a disservice - do you think of other heterosexuals only in term of sexuality or are they more than that?

By the way, did you read Rev. Gunn's account of "Betty" - the 'paperwork' that is supposed to give gays and lesbians the right to see their loved one in the hospital and make the heart-wrenching decisions after death proved to be inadequate. Also gay and lesbian individuals are not "barren" - they are able to reproduce - their are thousands upon thousands of children who have been born to gay and lesbian people. Some use the same medical options used by heterosexuals and some did it the 'old-fashion' way.

Jack B. (1/2 of a Straight Couple Fro Marriage Equality)

It’s difficult for me to comprehend how anyone can read articles such as this and "still" be in opposition for same sex marriage, while proclaiming to be a “Christian”. Especially those that continually stand on their soapbox day after day, article after article citing religious scripture with their weak arguments while refusing to cite any genuine unbiased facts.

If the opposition is so worried about the future of society and our children then why are they not fighting the REAL evils of society? God knows there are plenty of just causes they could apply their energies to. Why oh why are they not crusading for harsher punishments for rapist, murderers, and pedophiles?

I’m very secure in my faith and I believe this article to be indisputable. The opposition state they oppose it due to their religious faith, but from the outside it appears as nothing but a smoke screen they use to hide their own secrets.

What happened to "Betty" should never happen to anyone. Hopefully, there will come a day when the "Betty's" of the world will not ever experience what this woman did.

There will be a lot of posts to come disparaging this minister and what she wrote here....telling her she should not be a minister, etc....that God is not mostly about love, but rather about judgment/sin,etc. It is always good to read other posters here who respond to the pain that "Betty" had to endure, and think she should not have had to suffer that. Once again, no church would have to marry any couple they choose not to.....that would not change!

PaleShadow - What's difficult about this article is that there are no references to Christians, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. Apparently the UU church is not a Christian church, nor do they follow the Bible or Jesus Christ. I guess that's why the author never made reference to any Bible verses or biblical truths to back his case with the exception of "God is love". Also, the UU god does not judge. The God of the Bible is going to have a Judgment Day at which time everyone will have to answer for their sins. At God's Judgment Day, many will be sent to the lake of fire to be forever separated from God. As for you being secure in your faith, that's good for you. Unfortunately for you, I am very secure in my faith, and my Bible plainly states that homosexuality is a sin and that we are not to condone it. My God will only bless unions between one man and one woman. I hope before you leave this world that you come to know the Truth. I pray the same for Rev. Gunn, because she is wrong.

Sorry for the length but well worth the read if you really want to understand this hot button topic from a Christian perspective.

What About Gays Needs to Change? It may not be what you think!

Author: Tim Wilkins

I am aware the question in this article's title presupposes a change of some sort is necessary. My presupposition is grounded in the authority of God's Word. Secondary to that—I am a Christian and a former homosexual.

Having now used that inadequate and puzzling term former homosexual, let me try to decipher the lingo and properly answer the question.

Moving the Fridge

A story will help. A man glances out his home window and sees his neighbor. The neighbor has his pick-up truck backed to his side door, both the storm and main doors are propped open and a refrigerator blocks the doorway. Obviously the fridge is being moved and help is needed, so the friendly onlooker rushes to help his red-faced neighbor.

"Need a hand with that refrigerator, Fred?" asks Steven as he throws himself into the task. "Sure do! This thing weighs more than I thought!"

Fred and Steven throw their muscular arms around the appliance. With sweat rolling down their faces, they grunt and strain as the fridge moves a quarter of an inch then stops. They reposition their arms. The fridge barely sways even though both men are winded. After wrestling with the stubborn refrigerator for a full ten minutes, Steven gasps "Fred, I don't believe we're ever going to get this thing in the house." "In the house!" exclaims Fred, "I trying to get it in the truck!"

The point is apparent-without a clear and focused understating of what direction the homosexual needs to go, he will progress no further than the refrigerator.

What Needs to Change?

An illustration will help. Imagine a very thin lady seated at a dinner table. She fidgets with her food, spoons it from one side of her plate to the other, eats little if anything, then excuses herself from the table.

"How can a visibly gaunt woman eat so little or not at all?" we ask. Our observation could lead us to two premises-either she dislikes food or she is not hungry. If we accept the first premise-that she dislikes food—our sympathetic approach might include a variety of recommendations.

We inquire about the type of food she does like—maybe fast food, Mexican or Chinese. If not perhaps the immaculate look of a seven-course meal appeals to her appetite. Perchance she prefers her food prepared a certain way-broiled versus fried, rare versus well done. If none of these recommendations help, she could have sitophobia-a fear of food.

Let's now assume the second premise—that she is not hungry. If this suspicion is true she may be suffering from a malfunctioning metabolism. We make a doctor's appointment for her. The physician suspects a thyroid condition and orders blood work. And it's possible she has hypogeusia-a diminished sense of taste.

But as persistent as we've been, all approaches make little difference in this lady's eating habits, or lack thereof. She eats very little and infrequently! Our methods have been genuine, compassionate, and justifiable. We have devoted considerable time in our quest to correct the dilemma, but to no avail.

The Puzzle Comes Together

However, if we learn this woman is anorexic, our approach changes dramatically and immediately. We realize our initial assumptions and strategies are ludicrous and laughable because they do not bear on the primary issue—a distorted self image.

When this self-starved lady looks in the mirror she sees an obese lady looking back and no amount of persuasion will convince her otherwise.

When this primary issue is addressed, her food intake as well as the frequency of her eating increases. But take note-her increased eating is a byproduct of confronting the main issue-a distorted self-image. And I use the term image not only from a clinical perspective but a biblical one. Genesis 1:26-27 reads,

“And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Emphasis added)

Now the Analogy

How does this illustration apply to the homosexual condition? Just as it is absurd for the anorexic's family and friends to focus on trying to make her eat, so it is absurd for churches to try and make the homosexual heterosexual.

Society in general and churches in particular mistakenly believe freedom from homosexuality is marrying, having 2.3 children and a dog in the back yard. A 2001 secular study on the possibility of change shows the depth of this ingrained 'doctrine'. Dr Robert Spitzer, a Columbia University professor interviewed men and women who said they used to be homosexual; I was one of many he questioned. As beneficial as his study was and as much as I appreciate the visibility it gave to change, his study measured heterosexual function of the former homosexual—again missing the real issue.

“But” you ask, "don't homosexuals need to become heterosexuals?" No! Scripture never states nor implies all people must be heterosexual; it does say explicitly, however, that we are to avoid all forms of sexual immorality, which includes homosexuality. With that in mind have we not at times given the impression that homosexuals must “convert” to heterosexuality? Jesus did not say "Go and make [heterosexuals]"; He said "go and make disciples."

“But” you ask, "isn't heterosexuality the opposite of homosexuality?" No! The opposite of homosexuality is holiness!

As I wrote earlier, the term former homosexual is inadequate if not inappropriate. We mistakenly think a person who has found freedom from same-sex attractions is now heterosexual. The former homosexual man or woman may now experience heterosexual feelings, but heterosexuality should never be his nor the churches' goal. Heterosexuality is in many cases, but not all, a byproduct of the homosexual's dealing with the primary issues-a distorted self-image and faulty thinking-both of which Satan uses to “gain control.”

The church will do well to remember that singleness is not a sin, immorality is.

What all this means is that most of churches' advice to the homosexual misses the mark entirely!

Advice Well-Meant, but Wrong

Telling an adult gay son "you just need to date more; you haven't met the right girl" is senseless. Suggesting your lesbian friend "marry, settle down and everything will work out" is imprudent. Many gay men and women have married, thinking marriage will “heal” them and in most cases the consequences have been disastrous.

Some, hopefully not Christians, suggest a gay man "find a woman who can make you a man." While I 've never heard a Christian give such advice, I did have a twenty-seven year old gay man share the following with me. He said he was fifteen when his “Christian” father learned of his homosexual struggle. To 'help' his son the father bought him a subscription to Playboy magazine. That's equivalent to serving roast duck to the anorexic.

God does not heal one form of immorality with another form of immorality! How effective is a machine gun against a tidal wave?

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph. 6:12).

One married struggler told me his well-meaning pastor recommended he have more sex with his wife. Although the Bible does command conjugal rights (I Cor. 7:3-4), the pastor's advice bypassed the real issue.

Another pastor prayed with an unusually handsome and struggling man, then told him "I've got a really nice girl in the church I want you to meet."

A Christian friend who knows my testimony, met my wife Lisa and said "I can see why you left homosexuality; your wife is beautiful." While he is correct that Lisa is beautiful his statement, like so many, represents a global ignorance on the subject. If attractive women were the remedy for male homosexuality, there would be no gay men.

Many gay men ask me how to cultivate a romantic/sexual attraction to women. I tell them that is not the issue; the issue is a distorted/broken image. (I have often thought how devious our adversary is. He not only confuses men and women regarding their sexual identity, he also confuses them and the church as to what healing really is, thus compounding the problem.)

By dealing with the primary issue, gay men begin to see themselves as masculine and lesbians begin to see themselves as feminine; the same-sex attractions diminish and in many cases opposite-sex attractions occur.

Not a Means to an End

During my own journey out of homosexuality I made a significant discovery—Jesus Christ is not a means to an end. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. I did not go to Christ to get something else, namely heterosexuality. I went to Christ to get HIM!

When we learn this truth, we will witness prison doors falling off their hinges and chains disintegrating.

Author: Tim Wilkins, Cross Ministry. Wilkins is a former homosexual and now directs Cross, a speaking ministry headquartered in Wake Forest, NC. www.CrossMinistry.org

Copyright © 2003, Cross Ministry, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.

For further reading

What's wrong with being gay? Answer

What does the Bible say about same sex marriages? Answer

Can a gay person go to Heaven? Answer.

What should be the attitude of the Church toward gays and homosexuality? Answer

Read stories about those who have struggled with homosexuality—GO...

www.ChristianAnswers.Net

Christian Answers Network

PO Box 200

Gilber

What EJParsons stated is true and from the Word of God.

Chersully2000, I would like to comment on one of your statements on "God is not mostly about love but judgment". God is love but God is also about right and wrong and since He is the Creator of everything He made the rules, He decided what is wrong and what is right- unfortunately for many people their life style is not what God wants for us and if we decide to live that way (I'm not just talking about sexual immoral lives but any continual sinful lifestyle) then that person will face the consequences.

There are so many "Christians" out there that talk the talk but do not walk the "Walk" and that word is key, having a relationship with Jesus; walking with Him day in and day out following His commandments, living by example, loving others and for those who are in the wrong help them not condemn them; that is not my job that is my Lord's job. If a homosexual or anyone asks me about my faith I will explain it to them and let the Lord convict them through the Holy spirit.

forHIMtoday, your stories are ludicrous and what's worse is that you actually believe them! Very simply, you wrote what amounts to a winding road to bigotry!

Somebody has definitely been hitting the bottle with the bible.

AionCA - It'e the Holy Spirit and the Bible. No man-made spirits used here. If you would like, however, you can explain where we are wrong, according to the Bible.

Mainer82 - Thanks.

There is a reason that people are admitting to being non-believers at a record setting pace, it is because they are WAKING UP! No longer will they live their lives being judged by people who follow a book of fables and feel guilty for everything they do.

Faith by definition is "belief that is not based on proof". I for one cannot and will not live my life being controlled by something that nobody can prove is true or real, it would make no less sense to use lord of the rings as a bible, it is actually more believable.

So for those of you quoting scripture and trying to tell the rest of the world what god thinks of them, you are wasting your time, there is a rapidly growing number of people who are not buying that crap anymore. Thank goodness that atheism is becoming more mainstream and socially acceptable. So those of you who say that I will burn in hell, well that is your belief not mine, and I am not living in fear, it sure makes life more joyful! Fear is a great way to control people isn't it, the church teaches you that if you are good followers of them, then you will go to this wonderful place, and if you stray you will burn, kinda messed up when you think about it.

As always in articles posted in this section, there are some who have an issue with the affiliation of writer. Whether it be Islam, 'liberal' Christian, 'conservative' Christian etc. There are some who will try to debate the beliefs of the writer. Some who will call into question whether or not the writer and their religious beliefs are right or wrong. Some who will condemn the writer's beliefs and those of making comments as not following their doctrine and interpretation of scripture - this happened in the case of my wife - forgiven but not forgotten. My family has benefited from the thoughts and prayers of many who post here. As far as my research on the Unitarian Universalist Society, they are a congregation that welcomes all people of all faiths. From the Bangor site: "The Covenant: Love is the doctrine of this church, The quest for truth is its sacrament, And service is its prayer. To dwell together in peace, To seek knowledge in freedom, To serve human need, To the end that all souls shall grow into harmony with the divine. Thus do we covenant with each other And with God." Some take issue that they do not mention Christ - they are an inter-faith congregation. If you have a problem with that then don't attend.

This is a very emotional topic there is no denying that. It is clearly divided. I do, have and will continue to take issue with the distortions and what I consider lies about what this law does and does not do. There has been a reply to the ads on television and radio paid for by Stand For Marriage. It points out existing Maine law regarding schools, religious affirmation and discrimination. Instead of believing everything you hear in regards to these issues the ads have brought up, educate yourself on Maine laws and how they address each of the points reported.

https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5841/images/Ad%20Rebuttal%2009-17-09.pdf

Jack B. (1/2 Straight Couple For Marriage Equality)

Mainer82 - Commandments of Jesus - Mark 12; 30-31 "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment. And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." Or Matthew 22; 37-40.

These are the commandments of Jesus I live by daily do my best to live them by example - these are His words.

Jack B.

It's not about loving your brother and sister and fellow man. It's not about hate mongering. I keep getting told for example that I "hate" gays. Give me a break, it has nothing to do with it. I've never just hated someone because of the color of their skin or their orientation. I can rule that out, so it irks me when people go around accusing others of hate when there simply is none. In other words if you have points you have to make great- but if we can leave out baseless accusations in advance it'll be helpful.

On to some points that were made. I appreciate the specific education case pointed out. My issue altogether is that such a book is even available and encouraged. I'm sorry, but 5- 10 year olds have a male/female family most of the time. It is not the norm of today's society with it being the other way around. Therefore again, it is deviant behavior. Explain to me why I should want to see anything deviant taught or given to children at that age in school?

So that we are all very clear on the term deviant and it's definition I am posting it here:

Noun 1. deviant - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior

It is what it is. I don't want nice books about BDSM and master/slave lifestyle relationship books available to children either.

I don't believe in discrimination and hate. I believe very much in equality. Same-Sex unions should have every right marriage affords, love is love and people know who they love. It does not however need to be defined under law as marriage itself. It can be a union/partnership revised law that does all the same things.

Same-sex relationships will never be the norm. It will always be deviant. Please look past any religious and moral persuasions. Instead, look at nature and science. Humans reproduce via one method naturally. In the end Sally in 3rd grade with most of her class will be from a heterosexual family, as will most of her classmates. Tammy is a new student. Tammy comes from a same sex household. Obviously, this is a "special" circumstance not of the norm. The teachers and parents are probably good people. More than likely educational and parental conversations will allow Tammy to have a pleasant school experience. But, there are not alot of Tammy's in schools or not that I have run into. As I said though King and King books at ages 5-6 etc are just not good in my mind.

"Jesus said love one another. He didn't say love the whole world."

~Mother Teresa

from my devotional this morning, touching on that very thing.

The Divine Commandment of Life

. . . be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect —Matthew 5:48

Our Lord’s exhortation to us in Matthew 5:38-48 is to be generous in our behavior toward everyone. Beware of living according to your natural affections in your spiritual life. Everyone has natural affections— some people we like and others we don’t like. Yet we must never let those likes and dislikes rule our Christian life. "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another" ( 1 John 1:7 ), even those toward whom we have no affection.

The example our Lord gave us here is not that of a good person, or even of a good Christian, but of God Himself. ". . . be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." In other words, simply show to the other person what God has shown to you. And God will give you plenty of real life opportunities to prove whether or not you are "perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." Being a disciple means deliberately identifying yourself with God’s interests in other people. Jesus says, "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another" ( John 13:34-35 ).

The true expression of Christian character is not in good-doing, but in God-likeness. If the Spirit of God has transformed you within, you will exhibit divine characteristics in your life, not just good human characteristics. God’s life in us expresses itself as God’s life, not as human life trying to be godly. The secret of a Christian’s life is that the supernatural becomes natural in him as a result of the grace of God, and the experience of this becomes evident in the practical, everyday details of life, not in times of intimate fellowship with God. And when we come in contact with things that create confusion and a flurry of activity, we find to our own amazement that we have the power to stay wonderfully poised even in the center of it all.

Pay particular attention to the last paragraph. What a contrast from someone thinking their life is Godly based on Godly attributes versus a Christian realizing their a sinner in need of a savoir, and that none of us are worthy. One of satans best lies is convincing people that their good deeds are enough. Satan hates what Jesus did on the cross and a person that trusts in themselves is playing right into satans lie.

If the UUS church does not want to claim that the follow Christ, then they must stop classifying themselves as Christians. They have the right to follow anyone or any book that they want, but to claim to be Christians is blasphemy as long as they refuse to follow the Holy Bible to the letter.

As for faith and athiests, there is much more faith needed to believe in evolution, gay genes, and other things such as that.

EJParsons Re 8:41 where do find the UUS classify themselves as "Christians"? I can't seem to find that statement on any UUS site.

Thanks

Jack B.

This is not directed to any one person, only those who blindly follow what they have read in religious writings or what their preacher tells them on Sunday or whatever day(s) they go to their place of worship.

I really don't get into these blogs too much, but since my wife does, she shows me what's going on from time to time and it never ceases to amaze me how religious fanatics get on here and quote the Bible or other text or hearsay about what is right and wrong. Your GUT should tell you what's right or wrong. I do believe in a higher power that gave me free will... not to have the free will to worship totally and do as I say or you'll go to hell or free will so that I will fear "Hell" so much I do things that are illogical and don't feel right. God or whatever you want to call what happens after this life, tells me that a lot of the things written here in the name of "God" are garbage.

I would not be surprised if some of these religious zealots would also support sending blacks back to Africa or that it is a sin for people of different skin color to marry, or, like some of the middle east religious zealots, make women inferior and virtually slaves to men. This is a place of religious freedom, but you are using your "freedom" to try to tell those that are using the free will that was given to us to condemn those who don't agree with you....but with love, and in the name of "God"!! You want everyone to follow along like Lemmings and jump off the cliff because it is the word of God. You read the Bible and follow what it says or, more dangerously, follow the "interpretation" of your local preacher who tells you what it is supposed to mean because he had an epiphany and God gave him or her the power to interpret what the words "really" mean... but if you go down the street to the next church, the same words mean something else...how scary can it get!!

The Bible was written in a text that has been censored to take out anything that did not agree with the thinking of whoever was in power at the time it was written, and translated so much that the words do not even mean the same thing in today's terms. The Bible has been censored by flesh and blood people... like us, who used their own take on life at the time to decide that this is the way it should be taught and followed.... like the censors of today's movies and books, the text is edited to make it the way "we"... the censors... think it should be told. I go back to my basic belief... If it is wrong, you gut will tell you so. It is a moral issue... like if you lie, you know it's wrong, or if you steal, you know it's wrong, or if you physically harm someone on purpose and not in self-defense, you know it's wrong. In this case, using my gut and the free will that God gave me, I feel that those who oppose gay marriage are wrong and fear their flawed thinking and beliefs will catch up to them. So, for those who still want to follow their teachings and words written by people like the preacher down the street who just recently saw the light and wants to show others the way, Keep those blinders on and just follow the dwindling crowd to the cliff!

Finally, as has been noted previously, those opposed to gay marriage have spun the law to make it look like we'll have to start teaching that gay marriage is the norm in schools etc. This is a very good example of how religious fanatics have twisted what the Bible says...even if it is fiction... to sound the way they want you to hear it. It was written and translated in a one sided way and it does not tell the whole truth... what a tragedy!

Karenlite's husband

free2bee/jack: IMHO, you should go and speak to someone who is affiliated with that church or other churches.....there are many....(call the church,etc). I am surprised at you. Mr Parsons and one or 2 others here, who voice their opinions only, have made it clear what they think. Apparently you think they are authorities on these matters....that is up to you of course....but there are many other sources beside googling or asking someone on this site who you have read over and over....you must have some sense of all this. Oh well.....that's your call.....I sure would go further and talk to other Christians,etc. Good luck.

Karenlite's husband: Great post.

Karenlite's husband: Unfortunately you have hit on something in your post of 10:04 AM It comes across loud and clear....one suggested our President go back to Kenya! He isn't even from Kenya.....his father was. It is truly sad.....but yes, it comes across with some.....but of course, tons of people don't think like that .Best to keep it all in perspective.

And I do not know if you have attended any, or a lot , of churches, including Christian. That is your business. If you had, I think you might see it a little differently. There are many perspectives there....it isn't all like what you hear on this site or wherever. If you went out and explored it on your own, you would be more sure of where you stand....and might not view Christianity as being all "fanatics". There is so much more to it than that.

chersully, Re my comment on the UUS, on their site they state that they are made up of many different denominations, religions. I don't see anywhere that they claim to be a 'Christian' congregation, I find that they do not claim they are. EJParson stated "If the UUS church does not want to claim that the follow Christ, then they must stop classifying themselves as Christians. " His statement is false. They do not claim to be a Christian church, hence his statement is from what I can see a "distortion". I have much respect for the UUSBangor. Sorry you misunderstood my questions to him.

Karenlite's husband, thanks for your post!

Jack B.

free2bee: Re 4:10 PM.....I do NOT attend that church, but from what I have been told they do talk about Jesus and follow his teachings, just as much as some who seem to think they are some kind of authority (thus, their condemnation of so much and so many) I think I will go by someone who has attended that church rather than some on here. That is just my opinion... only. And that is what people do on these forums.....just state their opinions.

Ok, then free2bee: Go by that then. As I said, I do not attend that church, and never have. But it has meaning for many.....that is their right and their belief......that should be respected....people's choice. Most do not feel the need to butt into other's business and condemn them. When someone has to continually downgrade others' lifestyles, beliefs,etc. it shows an insecurity. If one truly feels very strong and secure in what they believe, they do not feel the need or desire to "go after" others.......to speak for them. It just is not necessary. They just realize that people think differently, and so be it. To feel the need to build oneself up (to keep from going to hell) at the expense of another......well, you can think of that what you will.

free2bee: You will understand 11:17 AM Some would take it out of context,etc. Best to speak, maybe, with those who attend the church. They could tell you more.

Have a good day.

EJParsons "As for faith and athiests, there is much more faith needed to believe in evolution, gay genes, and other things such as that"

Well I guess that I have to educate you on the definition of faith, as I said before faith is " belief that is not based on proof". So Evolution is not a faith, there is a ton of proof, so we don't even have to question the validity of evolution.

Intelligent design, well that is a whole other story and the very definition of faith "belief that is not based on proof", stories that have absolutely no proof as being real.

If you were to follow the bible to the letter, you would likely be in jail for murder among other things, SO I GUESS THAT MEANS THAT YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN EITHER!

Chersully2000, this is Karen, in response to your 10:40am post, my husband said I could speak for him on his religious views which we see basically the same. My husband was Methodist in his youth, he attended church regularly and sang in the choir. When we married he became Catholic, I encouraged him, myself being Catholic. We both certainly do not believe that all Christians are 'fanatics', never did, we see that most are loving and good people with charitable intentions. We have attended many Catholic and other churches, my husband being in military service for over 20 years, we've seen and lived among other cultures and religious beliefs and have come to know that most people tend to live and let live, keeping their insecurities to themselves.

free2bee, my husband says thank to you for

Free2bee, my husband says 'thank you' also for your informative posts, he sees that you and your wife see this issue very seriously, the issue of equality in marriage, as much as we do. He & I both feel the need to speak up on one of the most important amendments of our time, the right for same sex loving adults to legally marry, their love and way of life is the same as all couples, just living and trying to get by, loving and caring, and having a family to raise and share a lifetime with. We all want to have the good life!

Karen L.

Thank you 'MikeinNC', and I'd like to add that when all is said and done, the love we have and the love we have given is what is meaningful and what we are remembered by.

K.L.

Bravo K.L.! Love should never be looked at as a negative thing. Finding the love of my life has changed my whole perspective on life.

As my Mother-in-law would say, Mainer72, they'll have alot to 'chew on' when they get back and read the posts, {grin}.

Mainer72 there are probably many gay and lesbian individuals who attend church regularly - may be some in your church if you attend one. What people tend to forget is that there are many straight people who support this law - may be some of those in your church too. Not all churches are opposed to performing these marriages.

Also don't forget that this law is about CIVIL marriage, clergy and others who don't want to perform ceremonies are exempt and will not be 'punished'. That's made clear in the law.

P.S. Anyone know how much money was 'raised' by the special collections? WGME13 attended the Stand For Marriage meeting (yes they took in a camera) even though Tony Perkins made sure it was closed to media - It was supposed to inform and educate those who attended. Wonder what it was that he wanted hidden?

http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wgme_vid_632.shtml

Jack B. (1/2 Straight Couple For Marriage Equality)

It's quite simple and all we really need to know, and that is, 'love is what matters' and 'above all else love one another'. If we were to live by those words we wouldn't have these differences, we'd know the right thing to do always.

MikeinNC - 11:51 am - If you really believe that evolution has been proven, then you don't know that much about evolution. Of course, the public schools teach it as proven science, but that's simply not true. For example, not one mutation has been found that progresses life. There are still hundreds of missing links, and the one from ape to human is nowhere to be found. There is more and more evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old, not hundreds of millions. In fact, there is more evidence that backs intelligent design than there is evolution. And any thinking human being has to admit that the chances of us turning out the way we are is impossible without the intervention of a higher being. Evolution takes blind faith at every turn.

As for following the Bible, Christians are to use the New Testament as our guide and the Old Testament for historical studies. You see, Jesus brought with Him a new covenant that simplified the laws and made it easier for we weak, flawed humans to follow Him. Your last statement makes no sense at all.

Karenlite - 1:41 PM - "Love is what matters". No, Jesus is what matters. The Bible is what matters. And the rules and commands set down by the Lord are what matters. When we humans modify His rules to justify our sins, then we are wrong. When we humans change the meaning or hide the meaning of the Bible, then we are wrong. The UUS is wrong. And, if they truly don't claim to be Christian (the ones in the Pensacola area do) then it's good. Also, if they don't claim to be Christian, then they need to stop teaching about Christ and quit using the Bible.

7:18 AM, MaineMom73 on 9/19, false rhetoric from the the stand for marriage campaign. What do you think kids learn now about homosexuality? Do you teach them the facts rather than dirty jokes, mystery, and misinformation?

Vote No on One

As an Episcopalian and a Christian, as far as I know we are bound by two laws, love thy neighbor and love "God" with all thy heart and soul..... and I also know that "Judgment" isn't our job.... I appreciate when reading this letter, it points out so many issues in regard to same-sex couples. The Episcopal Church, also has made steps for same-sex rights within the Church, which I am very proud. I think it is important to always keep in mind if you are sitting on the fence about same sex marriage. Can you imagine Christ being a "hateful" or Inclusive? Remember he said give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God, what is God's. Civil marriages are those of the "STATE", and at no point is is a church or other faith required to officiate over a marriage they would not believe in. I am sure that the Unitarian's, Episcopalians, Reformed Jewish, many Justice of the Peace', and many other faiths would be happy to do so.

OMG forHIM,

“Dr Robert Spitzer, a Columbia University professor interviewed men and women who said they used to be homosexual; I was one of many he questioned.”

You’re gay! I should have caught that earlier! Your obsession with damaging theology should have given that away. Let me remind you that gay men are hunted like animals, tortured and killed in countries that are theocracies. (I said gay MEN because women are not even on the radar for these religious zealots and I suspect it’s the same for you) There is no doubt that in our culture men would rather not be homosexual, and I’m sure all gay men have thought about trying to change their sexuality but becoming a healthy gay person should be a goal. These religious delusions are aberrant and harmful.

Suggesting a gay man deceptively marry a woman and pray for deliverance from his sexuality is ludicrous at best, and deceptive and immoral.

Saying you were homosexual and changed, disqualifies anything I’ve read from you in the past. You are a deeply disturbed person in need of treatment. I’m sure most of the readers here see that in your relentless posting of sanctimony. I hope you find peace as your obsessive focus is evidence you have not.

Vote NO on ONE and free gay people religious oppression.

I meant "from"religious oppression......sorry*

JOESMUNOZ: Thanks for weighing in. Great post.

karenlite: Appreciated your post at 12:30 PM. Hope all is well.

What the? Stand for Marriage rhetoric? I don't volunteer for them or anything. Everyone seems to acknowledge a child in MA recieved a book King and King. No one disputes that act took place? If everyone agrees, then you need to go back and re-read what I wrote. MY issue is that the child got the book at ALL. It is deviant. That's Mirriam Webster's stance, not Stand for Marriage in Maine.

So then, why is it okay to have ANY deviant behavior around children? No matter how pretty you dress it up, it is what it is- deviant. Sorry I am not for that.

4:01 PM, MaineMom73 your quote was from their campaign. "Deviant," I rest my case. Another fearful person obsessed with sex. All people have some sort of sex life or not. Who cares?

william what in the world are you talking about. The words were his not mine, but hey I wouldn't put it past you. You have tried this tactic before.

I for one find it mind boggling that people equate calling something wrong as being hateful. Is it just a ploy? Are there actually people that actually believe that lie. I have no doubts that there are some extremists that actually hate someone just because their gay. But I also believe they are among the very few. I read many passionate stories from parents here who have homosexual children and while I can sympathize with them for the hurt they see their children endure, I just find it hard to believe they think because you oppose something sinful according to your beliefs you must also hate that person. What parent hasn't had a child lie to them at one time? Did you feel hate in your heart towards that child? I doubt it. And if you did then you have other issues. Did you love your child any less for telling a lie? I doubt it. Did you just throw your hands up in resignation ant tell them its alright to lie, its normal, go ahead do it if you feel its the right thing to do. Would you then want your childrens teachers telling them in school that its now considered appropriate to lie if that happens to be your inclination. Christians see this as sinful and feel just as strong about it as you who endorse it and see it as the norm. Calling me hateful, bigoted, backwards, blindly following some sky wizard will never bring us together in any meaningful way. For me anyway, there is no compromise as far as whether or not this is right or wrong. Its clearly spelled out in scripture, Jesus is clearly against it. I will never see marriage as anything other than one man and one woman.

forHIM, if it were sinful, God would not have let it happen for so long. If all the gay people where put to sleep, there would be a new group of them in 20 years. They are a product of heterosexual procreation. Why make them miserable? It's a naturally occurring event. Sorry, I just scan your long posts as I don’t have time to sit and read all of it. I have poor eyesight these days. Funny…. “ploy” I don’t need a ploy. I still think your obsession with Biblical text is rooted in pathology.

But you don’t deny advocating that gay men deceptively marry a woman, right? If not you then someone here recommends that.

And Jesus did not condemn gay people according to Biblical scholars who are in that business.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110234

It's coming. It's a logical conclusion to the evolution of social equality.

It's only a matter of time.

To EJParsons:

You are wasting your time, your rants are based on FAITH, not on fact or anything that can be proven. You have bought into that whole lifestyle, but I don't have to.

Don't try to defend anything in the bible or what you have been taught in church, because I don't believe any of it.

I feel that religion is the biggest scam ever pulled on humanity. It is often about instilling fear to control people, if you are virtuous you will get to live with god, if you are bad you will suffer for eternity in the worst way imaginable. Enjoy your stories of talking snakes and people living in whales, sounds like a fairytale to me. Christianity is a scary cult indeed.

MikeinNC - For your sake I hope you're right. If not, what are you going to say when you meet Jesus face to face?

5:37 pm, agreed, MikeinNC. It's all about domination and control, nothing more, nothing less. Behold the real sheeple. Ever notice how those in control of "the message" get to laugh all the way to the bank?

William, your 4:44 post "forHIM, if it were sinful, God would not have let it happen for so long." Where in the world did you come up with that tidbit of wisdom. If God were to wipe out all sinners there would be no one left standing. Thats what the cross of Christ is all about. He died in our place because sin is deserving of death. Its a free gift available to all that are willing to accept the gift. It cost you nothing, but cost Jesus everything.

1Jo 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him and {yet} walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth;

1Jo 1:7 but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.

1Jo 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1Jo 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

MikeinNC: I don't agree that Christianity is "a scary cult" or anything close..... but you have a right to your views. I do not know what your experience with going to church or Christianity is. It is not just all about what you hear on here. You might be surprised if you investigated and explored for yourself. But I am not telling you what to do. I feel that is your business. But I just had to weigh in and say that Christianity has a lot to give one. I hope you have known some Christians who you respect,etc. But there are other faiths as well, of course. To many many people all over the world, Christianity is anything but a "cult." I can see though why maybe you are getting further turned away from it. But the majority of churches , incl Christian, do not try and control their parishoners....not at all. They respect them and respect their ability to think for themselves.

Read it again for him. I said gay people are born daily, if they were to be wiped out, there would be another crop in 20 years. Why would God let that happen? Homosexuals are the product of heterosexually.

The only sin in my belief system is that which causes harm.

Most here are tired of your preaching. I don't read it. It's sanctimonious ranting with the intent of persuading people to vote for discrimination based on your theological fears.

Not scary, cher? I offer forHIM as evidence of the contrary.

WilliamDS: I know you have to be "kidding". Out of all the people in this world, that is just one individual you allude to. Keep it in perspective. Do you actually think all Christians and people are like that? If so, you are sadly mistaken. You are sure giving him a lot of importance, aren't you!

"i dont know where you get info that almost americans are supporting this law. You will see it will nto be on books it wil l be overturned"

That only applies to Maine. There is no popular vote that can overturn federal legislation or federal court rulings. It cannot be overturned at the federal level by popular vote.

It is happening already.

HA HA that's funny that I supposedly took the deviant thing from the Maine Marriage place. It's funny becuase really it was through a discussion my husband and I were having a loooong time ago.

QUOTE WILLIAMDS:

>>Another fearful person obsessed with sex. All people have some sort of sex life or not. Who cares?<<

Wow, that's quite an assumption you make about me that I'm fearful and obsessed with sex. The who cares question I can answer. Sally's mommy and daddy may play "bedroom" games that may even be considered deviant in nature. The difference is, no kids are at all interacting with that in any way shape or form. A Book like the King and King is some book that shows the child deviant behavior. By technical definition that's what it is. If the Marriage organization is using that word they are correct in their english grammar usage.

Mainer72,

Nut case? I'm just speaking truth. You get a clue yourself: look at American history for a lesson or three.

See, the federal government ended Jim Crow: even in the states that didn't want them to.

See, the federal government ended all sodomy laws in every state with Lawrence v. Texas: even in the states that didn't want them to.

See, the federal government ended all laws against miscegenation with Loving v. Virginia: even in the states that didn't want them to.

See, the federal government ended all laws outlawing abortion with Roe v. Wade: even in the states that didn't want them to.

See, the federal government can do that, and states can't "opt out". It's called civil rights, though many don't feel that it is. The federal government is coming around to recognize that there's no real rational reason to discriminate against a class of people doing no harm. This is a good thing. They're already changing it, my friend. It's been picking up speed well in recent years and shows no signs of doing anything but progressing. It's already happening in other words.

Have a wonderful evening!

mainer72, no you are correct in your assessment. Its been voted down evey time. EVERY TIME. Tedlick loves to compare his plight to those of the blacks as if there was any comparison at all! Blacks across this country are insulted by the comparison and who can blame them, being compared to a perversion. Blacks overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage and so do Mainers. They will see in just a few short weeks.

Chersully2000, I have some wonderful friends that are christians, and although I think that their beliefs are ludicrous I respect their choice to believe, because they are not using it as a shield to hate.

I know that the church often brings comfort to those who need it, it gives them a feeling of community. I know that there are lots of churches that do really wonderful things and I applaud them for that, those are the ones that I consider are "walking the walk". But I just cannot bring myself to believe in it anymore, I was raised catholic and often attended my mom's methodist church, my memories of going to church are good ones, but even as a child the teachings raised a lot of questions.

I think that the church in the article really has christianity or at least the spirit of it figured out, I am willing to bet that it is a very genuinely happy congregation (not the fake smiling jesus freak type).

We have a few UU churches here and we have a GLBT, game night there once a month, it is a great fun social activity and the church treats us with dignity and respect, even as a non-believer I am very comfortable there, isn't that what church is supposed to be about?

1Jo 2:15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.

1Jo 2:17 The world is passing away, and {also} its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

1Jo 2:18 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not {really} of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but {they went out,} so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

1Jo 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.

1Jo 2:21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

Yes 4him... but go out and read what's going on in Congress as we type...

It won't matter eventually.

There's no rational reason for it not to. All a matter of time now. It has begun. May take more than a few short weeks, but I can wait.

Keep on denying Jesus chersully and you will soon find out He will deny you also before the Father... you will see.

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

1Jo 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

1Jo 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the {spirit} of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

1Jo 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.

see cher, its even simple enough for you to understand. You deny Jesus as the Christ you are a follower of the anti-christ. Get it?

That's funny HIM, who really are the liars, the ones who call the love of another a perversion... That's who..

karen your argument is with the bible, Gods word. You can deny it all you want, in the end you will lose everything, everything..forever.

1Jo 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.

1Jo 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.

1Jo 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

forHIMtoday, but I love and listen to what is right and good my little friend and I seek truth and justice for all. I wonder what will happen to you when you finally realize you are wrong about your heavy handed judgment of others. In one fell swoop you dismiss an entire group of human beings, gays and the love they have, and you don't mind telling them and anyone else that God doesn't love them. I pray for you.

Karen find me one place where I said God dosen't love gays. I challenge you to find it. I have said over and over quite the opposite. So my little friend that would make you the liar.

Ahhh... 4him you make Christianity out to be so cold and cruel. Sad that you push so many away.

Very sad indeed.

World is changing, my friend. Can't stop it. You oughtta sweeten your demeanor up a bit. Maybe save a few souls. Cuz how you're coming across now isn't doing a very good job at it. And the world is still changing around you... unimpeded.

Since it's obvious you're not out to save souls for Christ, and the world around you continues to change no matter how vehemently you try to stop it by hollering and screaming, what exactly is it that you're trying to do?

who hasn't heard Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. HE LOVED THE WHOLE WORLD, gays included.

and then you have satan's dominions like the one above that try at every turn to persuade you that its not true, that deny Gods truth, that lie and distort scripture, that are bent on taking you down with them, and take pleasure in doing it.

6:59 PM, chersully2000, I think that sort of faith is scary, yes. It promotes irrational thinking and fear based on unproven ideas. People act on these ideas and that is dangerous, as evidenced by crimes committed in the name of religious deities.

But he'll throw those he loves into a pit of fire for consensual relations with someone of the same sex, out of which comes harm to no one. Forgive me... that sounds nothing like love to me.

We've moved out of the Dark Ages, 4him... Religion served up as fear isn't really working in the western world anymore. Folks follow personal paths with what they see as God, and most are far more compassionate than what you're pushing.

8:33 PM, forHIMtoday, Wow, everyone did you read that? Ted you forgot to hide your tail! No danger, cher?

Well said, tedlick!

HIM, sorry about the 'little', but it's demeaning when you talk of gay love being wrong. I know you have said you 'love' gays but hate the sin and that God hates the sin of gay sex, that's just not right, you must not realize yet that what you say and how you judge is wrong. Love is really all the same in the eyes of God, of that I am sure.

william you don't have to convince cher, she'll gladly deny Christ right along with you. Don't be so blind, she's on your side. "When they come to arrest the Christians, will there be enough evidence to convict you?" She thinks she's playing it safe with a leg on each side of the fence.

Yes, William, I read it. He got me. I'm just a little devil!

Guess I'll go sharpen my horns now. >:-)

Can't pay enough for this kind of amusement.

as usual ted you have it backwards, you have moved into the darkness.

God doesn't throw you into hell, you willingly go by your own admission. He gave you a way out, your refusing it. Your to blame not God.

The darkness thing again... More curious accusations from our Dark Age Lord.

I don't see the world as sliding into a depraved, horrid place. I see it as a wonderful place, full of light, warmth, happiness, family, friends... it's a wonderful place. I'm not screaming about how vile it all is... and getting worse. I'm reveling in it... living life with for all it's worth.

I'll never understand your comments about darkness. My life is so very far from that.

I guess I too should be obsessed with worry about how archaic forms of societal control are losing ground. Maybe then I'd be "living in the light".

WilliamDS, you're always on top {grin} of your game, tedlick, the same. I pray the day will come for true understanding of what love really is.

forHIMtoday, love isn't what you're dishing out. It's not up to you to judge.

Honestly, you're the one who's refusing to know what love is. You won't know until the day comes when you pray for it.

William: He is nothing. He does not know me or speak for me. He has a very huge inflated sense of importance......I would not want to be anything like him for anything and I know many who here who would feel the same. I would be very scared to be such a person....I can not state that strongly enough.

You have a wonderful night William. It was a great day.....hope for you as well.

MikeinNC: Thanks for your comments.

forHIM, you're making me a little nervous. It's this sort of thing that motivates the irrational to fly planes into buildings and your zeal, though more quiet, is just as intense as that of the noisy crazies. As stated earlier either here or on another thread, gay men are being hunted, tortured, and murdered in the name of religion in Iraq and to some extent in Iran and other Islamic theocracies. It seems it doesn't matter if they actually engage in homosexual activity, they are killed for just existing. Keeping gay people marginalized, isolated, and invisible makes them vulnerable to this sort of oppression. By your beliefs and statements you condone and promote it even if you say differently. As "dominions," we can't let that happen. "Moved into the darkness." Wow...it's looking hopeless.

Night, cher, and thank you Karen for your support of marriage equality.

Vote NO on ONE

tedlick: This world is wonderful....most of us are very happy living here with our families and friends and neighbors.....I know what you mean. Most of us find so much of the good and positive here, while we are here.

No tedlick....if I understand your last paragraph....do not be "obsessed with worry about how archaic forms....etc."..... I know you probably were not being serious.

No cher, from the point of view that 4him has regarding Christianity, he does indeed see it as something from which social control should come: that the laws of how people around him must live come from his interpretation of dogma. Anyone who doesn't buy in, is legally ostracized in society. From that standpoint, I meant it completely.

That is not a general statement about Christianity, but about 4him's particular interpretation.

Thank you for all you do, the fighters for the freedom of others, at the expense of those who try to dismiss us. Those who do that are afraid of the truth and they don't know how to love.

I'm going for now, have a wonderful night to 'all' of you here.

K.

That is my assessment too, tedlick.

Night Karen.

Thank you Rev. Becky Gunn!

Thank you for your letter and you insight.

Very much appreciated.

I look forward to voting No on 1, and cheering on the newlwed couples at your church someday!

God bless!

*newlywed

Good night karenlite, William, tedlick and blueskiesaboveme!

WilliamDS: It is not "looking hopeless", as you wrote there....you could not mean that. Good night.

I meant hopeless for forHIM, cher.

forHIMtoday wrote:"mainer72, no you are correct in your assessment. Its been voted down evey time. EVERY TIME. Tedlick loves to compare his plight to those of the blacks as if there was any comparison at all! Blacks across this country are insulted by the comparison and who can blame them, being compared to a perversion. Blacks overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage and so do Mainers. They will see in just a few short weeks."

Not only do you purport to speak for all Christians, you purport to speak for all African-Americans in the entire US !

How compelling.

forHIMtoday wrote:

"karen your argument is with the bible, Gods word. You can deny it all you want, in the end you will lose everything, everything..forever."

Threats like these rarely ever win converts. Are you sure you are even a Christian ?

Ever heard a word Jesus said ?

I just have got to wonder, from reading your incessant drivel on here, day in, day out.

Funny how you rarely quote anything from The Messiah, and lean quite heavily, and remarkably *selectively*, on the Old Testament.

I just have to *beg* people in this forum to not judge all Christians based on anything you have to say.

Christian or not, please find it in your hearts to forgive him.

"Those who teach (preach) will be held most accountable . . . "

Interesting that I was respectful and polite with my thoughts and people deliberately gave my post a thumbs down because I made valid points. Really, for a bunch of people that claim they want equality they aren't getting- maybe you should start with free speech?

Yup, civil unions would cure this whole mess I guess.

So---Rev. Becky gunn----if Betty was carrying a marriage certificate ( unlikely) would the hospital have let her in to see her partner ?

I believe any person should be able to name one individual to have the right to make the decisions for their partner---I don't believe it should be called 'Marriage '.

God created man, and woman, for the purpose of them being partners and bearing children to inhabit the Earth. Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, taught us of Gods comandments. The Church should teach Gods laws, not make up their own. It's not a matter of 'judging' people. That's Gods job. The Clergy's job is to teach the Bible, right from wrong ( morality ) and compassion for others. Compassion doesn't need to be condoning homosexual partnerships.

freedomfighter,

I doubt adopting civil unions would stop the fervent zealots who are out against homosexuality in general, not marriage. Just look at what Michael Heath is trying to do: make civil unions illegal.

I'd be fine with it, but I'm doubtful that those against same sex marriage would be fine with it.

tedlick...that's another questions forHIMtoday has refused to answer....would "civil" unions be an acceptable alternative to same sex marriage?

i John 4:16 God is love....Case closed.

What the Reverend Ms. Gunn neglects to point out is that the central part of her story that of “Betty” must have occurred before July 2004 since the Maine Domestic Partnership Law covers precisely the she situation described, since registered domestic partners are legally each others’s next of kin.

How the “same sex marriage” law would have changed the situation is a problematic question at best. How many heterosexual couples can instantly prove that they are married if questioned?

An emotional story but a red herring.

Good points are made by Rev Gunn.

All summer long couples have been coming to CT to wed from all around the country and many cases the are bringing their families and friends along to celebrate with them. Many of these couples have been together for a very, very long time. Congrats to all.

Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace,

Washington, Connecticut, 06793

Marriage is firstly a civil matter, as marriage linceses are issued by and recorded in town halls not church halls, or mosques or temples in America.

AionCA: re 1:54 AM You said it! His tactics are bullying and threats......doesn't work.......and most would know better than to conduct themselves like that. Most would know how wrong it is and would beyond reluctant to do that(for so many reasons).....you know what I mean.

tedlick. Re: 8:53 AM Sadly, you are likely right.

CornetMustich: Thanks...and yes, congratulations to all of those couples...and good for Connecticut!

It's hard to believe that anyone who claims to be Christian these days would oppose marriage for those who want it. The fact is, it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with ignorance and lack of education. Marriage is one of the main supports of our society today and to attempt to keep people from marrying is an act of harm against us as a country. We have fought for generations against discrimination and those who would harm others with their evil actions and we need to continue to fight those whose agenda includes keeping children of same sex couples from having married parents. Fighting against same sex marriage not only harms those who wish to marry but also the innocent children of those couples. A person who would support a law that keeps children from having married parents is not only un-American but reprehensible.

MikeNYC: I could not agree more with what you wrote. It is incomprehensible. You are right....this is an issue about civil rights...it is a humane issue. Allowing same sex couples to have the protections and benefits of marriage will not harm society or this country. Educated and thoughtful people know this( and, most importantly, those who care to treat others as they would wish to be treated.)

Sundaychild, How many heterosexual couples in that situation HAVE to provide proof. My Mom did not have to provide proof when my Dad was in the hospital and died many years ago - there was no question that she was who she said she was. Not all gay and lesbian couples have registered their partnerships - some go to a lawyer. Sometimes people die with no will, sometimes families contest wills and win (like children who have an issue with their parent's second wife or husband). Don't forget that straight couples can also register their partnerships. And don't forget that Michael Heath et.al. have a proposed initiative for 2010 that would dissolve Domestic Partnerships and prohibit Civil Unions. You think it would be dropped if this law is repealed?

MaineMom73, while you state you were respectful in you previous posts, I guess some disagreed. Posts get thumbs down quite often. Some of mine have and do. Remember all someone has to do is hit the thumbs up if they want to read it - you still have freedom of speech.

Got a date with my wife tonight, dinner and a movie. Celebrating our 15th a few days late.

Have a good evening all.

Jack B.

Ok. Let the homosexuals get married. Then let the mothers and sons, fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, adults and children, humans and animals, threesoms, foursomes, groups, and whatever other combination that wants to be married. They're all sexually immoral, so once the door is open, the skies the limit. Of course, God won't be very happy. But, the immoral don't believe in God anyway.

Civil Unions?!? Instead of redefining marriage?!? SOUNDS GREAT where do I sign? Civil unions would be a better solution and make way many more people happy. It would me. As I stated, there should be death bed rights, IRS 1040's all of it. Those could all be given and such through a civil union law. I like that idea. It means not redefining marriage.

MaineMom73...I am just a bit confused. On this post and another you have posted some very serious claims surrounding what would happen if this state validates same sex marriage.

You have mentioned (on another post since taken down by the BDN) NAMBLA and BDSM as groups looking for changes in the state law so they can "marry" and have used these examples of deviant behaviors to argue against same sex marriage.

While I find the examples rather out in left field, I find your flip flop even stranger. How does creating "civil unions" stop the evils you claim will happen if we validate same sex marriage? Isn't the "danger" the same regardless of the word chosen in state law? What if the very groups you claim are attempting to change state law decided to substitute the word "civil" for the word "marriage", would that make it OK in your view?

The same question was asked of forHIMtoday (would a "Civil Union" law replacing the same sex marriage law make a difference in your opposition to it) and he has chosen not to answer it. That is his choice of course and I believe it would make no difference to him at all. But absent an answer, that is just my opinion.

You are redefining marriage by taking the term marriage away and replacing it with civil. I'm for expanding civil union/domestic partnership laws, NOT redefining marriage laws.

Leave marriage alone. And also, that blog wasn't shut down by anything I said. it was from Anne swearing in it.

MaineMom73...alright, let me rephrase the question.

How does "expanding civil union/domestic partnership laws" take away the evil you claim "same sex marriage" will bring if validated? The sexual act is the same? How does making it a "civil union/domestic partnership" take away the "deviant" part of the act?

I just do not understand you logic. If it is a "deviant" act, doesn't it remain a "deviant" act regardless of the words used to describe it?

And, I never said the blog was shut down as a result of anything you said. I simple stated that the blog had been shut down.

why is it that when a liberal uses religion to support homosexual "marriage," people on the left don't scream about injecting religion into politics/running roughshod over the first amendment?

Obviously, the Maine legislature's passage of the homosexual "marriage" bill is a direct assault on the establishment clause, isn't it? Or does it allow for the establishment of religions that reject traditional Judeo-Christian morals? Apparently, it must...

Not sure what you are getting at Dirigodad.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly known as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine the Bill of Rights have been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the majority of the court joined Justice David Souter's opinion, which stated that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

Jack: Have a wonderful celebration tonight.....Congratulations!!

It is amazing that a few here continue to have the audacity and sanctimoniusness to tell others whether they believe in God or not. It is beyond the pale. Let them make themselves feel better.....but they are so off.

JD: That individual you refer to always states it is "his call." Whatever....

JD: And thank you very much for your edifying comments at 10:37 PM. Yes, most get that (but apparently some do not, or choose not to.) It is clear that , in this country, one religious preference is not to be given more validity or support than another. This country allows for the expression of all religions and faiths.....thankfully......

For those of you who believe homosexuality is unnatural, I would like to point out hat homosexual behavior has been seen in hundreds of bird and mammal species. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html for some examples. While homosexual behavior is never the dominant sexual behavior in a species, in some cases homosexual pairings has been observed to last for years, especially in birds. So the argument hat homosexuality is wrong because it is unnatural is false to facts. Some may say we are different from animals and should act better, but we are animals as any biologist will tell you, we have the same biological processes as they do. The closest related animals to us, with 99% identical DNA, are the chimpanzees and bonobos, and homosexual behavior is more common in the bonobos than it is in people.

Human homosexual behavior per se is not self-destructive, abnormal, or antisocial. But social disapproval of homosexuality causes tremendous stress on some gays and lesbians, and that can lead to promiscuity, alcoholism and drug abuse. With the gradual decline in homophobia and discrimination over the past forty years in the US, many more gays and lesbians are living happy and productive lives. Homosexuals contribute to society every day, work in every profession, pay taxes. Some couples adopt the orphaned abandoned children of heterosexuals, or arrange biological reproduction in creative ways. And the American Psychological Association, which has considered homosexuality not to be a mental disorder since 1973, has studies that show the children of lesbian couples turn our to be happy, well adjusted people. They are good parents, and less likely to abuse their children then fathers in heterosexual marriages do.

The desire for marriage in the gay community is actually a very conservative one. Those who wish to marry want commitment, stability and security for their love. Those gay or lesbian couples with children want to make sure that if something awful happens to one parent, the other will be able to care for the kids. But gays and lesbians want to be treated with equality above all. Taxing the survivor's death benefits from a dead gay partner, even if he or she has to care for kids is just wrong. That does not happen to heterosexual widows and widowers the same way, only the wealthiest pay inheritance taxes. Maine's same sex marriage law won't fix that problem, which has to be addressed at the Federal level, but it will lay the groundwork for a fairer future. at least at the state level there will be equality before the law.

I've thought and researched a lot about this, being a biologist and a legally married gay man myself. My husband and I have been living together since 1991, and married since 2007. My husband was born in Bangor and grew up in Winterport, Maine. My family came from Aroostook county. We have built a house near Ellsworth, and plan to move from Boston in a few years, so the fate of this law will affect us.

Please vote No on 1.

Interestingly, the Pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony did not have religious marriage at all until 1692. All their marriages were civil ceremonies, legal contracts, no church involved. They decided to emulate the Dutch in this instead of the English. Marriage in the Americas since then has been first and foremost a civil institution, which optionally could be officiated by a priest or parson.

SteveK: Thanks for sharing that. I hope you and your husband will be happy living in Maine. It is a very good place, for the most part.

And just wanted to add....that I am one person (a heterosexual woman) who will definitely be voting NO on 1. It is the only fair and decent outcome.

Thank you.

The marriage between a same sex couple will only benefit them and any children they have. It will not do anything to the marriages of heterosexual couples; no changes there. And once again, no church will be forced to marry any couple they choose not to. However, there are many many churches that would be more than happy to marry a same sex couple, as any other.

It is the fair, humane and decent thing to grant same sex couples the protections, dignities and benefits of marriage. Denying them anything less, is cruel and selfish.

Vote No on 1

It's good to read a nicely put article supporting gay marriage from a minister.

I'm definitely voting NO on 1 :)

QUOTE JD2008

>>>>MaineMom73...alright, let me rephrase the question.

How does "expanding civil union/domestic partnership laws" take away the evil you claim "same sex marriage" will bring if validated? The sexual act is the same? How does making it a "civil union/domestic partnership" take away the "deviant" part of the act? <<<<<<

It does not take away the fact that it is deviant. However, we are talking about a sexual deviance that isn't harmful. Same Sex is not a "harmful" deviance. Productive stable relationships have come from it. I don't consider same sex relationships "evil". OH HELL NO. That's just silly. Evil is really bad stuff like torture, rape, murder etc.

Expanding civil/domestic laws is not the same as redefining "marriage"

If the "agenda" is to have everything "marriage" gives a heterosexual couple, then I don't see why this is not being taken up in Washington DC. Isn't it all the federal stuff that is sought? The state level hardly accomplishes that.

Attacking me is just stupid. I'm more on your side then you think. I'm ALL FOR same sex couples having the same benefits as married people. What I am not for is redefining marriage and making it genderless.

Personally, if I was part of the same-sex movement I'd go for a Federal Domestic Partnership law. I'd try to change something there rather than change marriage.

For me, the issue issue is with children. You can tell me "all day' it won't ever be in schools. That, however is NOT true. News article say otherwise.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45844

I don't think the "gay agenda" should get to trample all over parental rights. I don't think children need to be exposed to same sex deviance.Making marriage genderless bring the possibility of it being in schools. I would rather children grow up and "learn" the norm and later on let them make their own choices of what makes them happy. I don't think young children need ANY exposure to same sex relationships. Maybe in late high school AT BEST.

So yes- what kids are learning and what may show up in schools is important. I don't want marriage made genderless. I don't want the public school to expose children at "grade school level" to it because of your agenda. The agenda to be accepted by all of society. Hence we have books like the Kind and King in schools. It isn't happening in states that HAVE NOT redefined marriage.

I am voting YES on 1. If you folks want to go for expanding civil/domestic laws I'm all for that. The moment YOUR rights start to "trample" on parental rights to further an "adult" agenda is where I stand on the other side of the line. Your rights are doing that. if marriage is redefined then the possibility of same sex literature being is schools is not some "never going to happen" scenario.

You can tell people that No on 1 isn't going to affect them or schools but that's a LIE if anyone researches it they will find LEGAL cases where judges having been ruling on it. However, in states where marriage is NOT redefined this isn't going on.

So, that's PART of the reason I am voting YES on 1. You can try to discredit me etc, but again all people have to do is go read in google. "GOOGLE is your friend"

MaineMom73 I am not trying to discredit you. I am trying to point out the inconsistent nature of your argument.

Civil Unions and Same Sex Marriage in the end both allow same gendered couples to marry.It gives them the same "rights" as any other "married" couple. I recently attended two weddings. One was performed by a Justice of the Peace and the other by an ordained Minister. In the end both couple are "married", one through a "civil" process and the other by a "civil and religious" process.

You posted that NAMBLA (on another article on the BDN which has since been taking down) was attempting to change the marriage laws so they could marry. Based on your current argument, if NAMBLA changed what they were seeking from marriage to civil union you would be OK with that? You also post a couple engaged in BDSM might want to marry as a master/slave. Again, based on your current argument, if the couple change what they were seeking from "marriage" to civil union you would be OK with that?

Again, I am confused how you can claim that same sex marriage will cause all the issues you have claimed on this BDN blog and on another BDN blog and then by simply changing the wording it would be "OK" and all the issues will go away.

But why not answer all the questions put to you in my previous post and this one too?

And just to clear up any confusion on my part, like Jack B. I am one half of a heterosexual couple married many years.

EJParsons -- I have always understood that the UU church was not a Christian church; you are right on target with your comments. Loved your summation of guidelines for Christian behavior regarding the New & Old Testaments.

Evolution is a theory, as in "Darwin's therory of evolution" This is common knowledge. It should not be twisted to make someone's point.

MikeinNC -- Christianity is not a cult. Sorry, but you are dead wrong.

I weigh in with my opinion once in a while, but have any of you noticed those who obssessively comment on every story, etc?. Do you folks have jobs? Do you have anything else inyour lives beside the BDN? You know who you are. Boy will I get a message-full for this post. lol

Becky Gunn I note that you say you are pastor of the "Unitarian Universalist Society" and only refer to it as a church as an afterthought. Your society is a "church" in only the most rudimentary sense in that you appear to worship man rather than God. I think the reason you define yourself as a church has more to do with tax-exempt status than any belief in religion.

As for Betty's story. Boo hoo. The fact that life is sometimes unfair is not a good reason for a law.

Nambla is an organization seeking to change sex offender laws not marriage laws. The only thing they have in common is they seek to "change" laws too. They have a sexual deviance and wish to change laws because of it. The gay agenda is to change and redefine marriage. Both seek to change laws. Just differently. Nambla is a group of child rapists that should be locked up.

I can keep re-wording my points over and over but I don't have that kind of time. I have papers I need to write for professors. People can scroll up read my points and then go use GOOGLE.

GOOGLE is your friend. I told you why I was voting YES on 1. Children and education. Re-read my post above.

People can find the truth all on their own well enough and see that what I say about children and education is true regarding redefining marriage.

Have a good day folks.

SteveK-I'm glad I don't have to define the root of my sexual preference with animals. Do you know what monkeys do? Do you know what they eat and what they throw? When they're up there in trees "entertaining" themselves only to throw the "evidence" at innocent bystanders. I really would reconsider who you are using to try to justify your own issue. Marriage does not have to be redefined for a few.

VOTE YES ON #1

EJ Parsons, did you miss it? This is ALL they want, just to be married like the rest of us. They won't ask for special treatment, relatives won't be able to marry, beastiality will not prevail, men will not have four wives. HA HA HA, when do you think they will draw the line? Give and inch and take a mile, just like last time.

VOTE YES ON #1

realist38 - They will never draw the line. They will never be satisfied. But, will they ever see the Light?

I understand that parts of the Old Testament seem to suggest that homosexuality is sin, but those interpretations are probably inaccurate and often taken out of context. In any case, even if they do condemn homosexuality, they are closely accompanied by condemnations against eating shellfish and many other things that nearly all Christians do today without a second thought. Leviticus says lots of things, and the Lord commands his people to kill unruly children and enslave the surrounding nations. Lot, God's honored man whom he sent angels to save from the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, managed to impregnate both of his young daughters in the same story. It's truly hypocritical to selectively quote the Bible against gays.

In reality, there are several positive stories about same-sex relationships (both romantic and sexual) in the Bible. In my opinion, these outweigh any other alleged condemnations against homosexuality, which are really misinterpreted anyway, usually statements about rape (it was customary for a nation's men to rape the losing nation following a war - it was a means of humiliation). In contrast, the romantic/sexual stories of Ruth & Naomi, David & Jonathan, and Daniel & Ashpenaz are much more telling about acceptance for same-sex couples in the Bible. It's interesting also that Jesus never mentioned same-sex relationships...

Ruth 1:16 - "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

1 Samuel 18:3 - "And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt."

2 Samuel 1:26 - "I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

I somewhat consider myself Christian and I identify as a gay male. I don't see any reason for there to be difficulties between the two. Modern day fundamentalists are like the Pharisees that Jesus spoke of, following self-righteous rules that have no practical value and often hurt others. I encourage Christians to read the Bible themselves and make up their own minds about what it says. Fundamentalists are not really Christians - they're just using religion as a convenient means to hide behind their own bigotry. It's been done for centuries. EJ, forHIM, etc. would be using the Bible to condemn interracial marriage 50 years ago, and citing Leviticus 25:44 in order to maintain slavery.

The true message of Christianity and Jesus was one of compassion and acceptance. I try to follow in his footsteps and forgive those who twist the inspired words of God in order to propagate their own fears and prejudices. They know not what they say.

9:25 AND 9:40, Your exactly right. It won't stop.

If not this "special" group, it will be another...

Societies die when right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right. We fight to have the right to kill babies (abortion) and fight to spare murderers and rapists the death penalty. We fight to give a group that practices unacceptable behavior a title that has been cherished by those who find the behavior unacceptable. You can argue whether there is a God or not, and the route to find acceptance from him. But realize that when there is no absolute truth, might makes right.

What a poor excuse of a "Minister" and terrible representation of the Biblical view. He definately got into the wrong career path! He should be working for the ACLU (American Communist Lawyers Union). Here's the deal...God is love and loves all people but He also places guidelines to how we should live and conduct ourselves in a Rightous manner. Does God love gays?...yes! It does not mean that He has to love their decisions. He gave free will to all men to choose their own path and it is up to the individual to choose their master. Does a mom love her son who ran away from home to persue a life of drugs and alcohol? Of course! but she does not love the habbits that her son has picked up...the chances are, she despises them!

Get my point?

MaineMom73,

All you are quoting is propaganda. Current law allows the teaching og Marriage Equality. The passage of LD 1020 has absolutely no effect. I also an unaware that Maine has to follow the laws or curriculum of Mass. Seems that ended in 1820. Should Maine schools add to the curriculum a lession on marriage relationships, it will follow all the existing procedures established by local school boards and the state which invite parental involvement. These statements by "Stand for Hatred" are scare tactics and nothing more.

No I am not promoting propaganda.

In states where marriage is NOT redefined this is NOT happening. That's just a fact.

All I have done is post MY Reasons WHY I am voting YES on 1.

I'm not going to keep re-wording my reasons of why I am personally voting YES on 1.

Don't like it? TOO BAD! DEAL WITH IT!!!

Here is a REPOST incase you still wonder why I am voting YES on #1

Expanding civil/domestic laws is not the same as redefining "marriage"

If the "agenda" is to have everything "marriage" gives a heterosexual couple, then I don't see why this is not being taken up in Washington DC. Isn't it all the federal stuff that is sought? The state level hardly accomplishes that.

Attacking me is just stupid. I'm more on your side then you think. I'm ALL FOR same sex couples having the same benefits as married people. What I am not for is redefining marriage and making it genderless.

Personally, if I was part of the same-sex movement I'd go for a Federal Domestic Partnership law. I'd try to change something there rather than change marriage.

For me, the issue issue is with children. You can tell me "all day' it won't ever be in schools. That, however is NOT true. News article say otherwise.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45844 (Court ruling news coverage)

I don't think the "gay agenda" should get to trample all over parental rights. I don't think children need to be exposed to same sex deviance.Making marriage genderless bring the possibility of it being in schools. I would rather children grow up and "learn" the norm and later on let them make their own choices of what makes them happy. I don't think young children need ANY exposure to same sex relationships. Maybe in late high school AT BEST.

So yes- what kids are learning and what may show up in schools is important. I don't want marriage made genderless. I don't want the public school to expose children at "grade school level" to it because of your agenda. The agenda to be accepted by all of society. Hence we have books like the Kind and King in schools. It isn't happening in states that HAVE NOT redefined marriage.

I am voting YES on 1. If you folks want to go for expanding civil/domestic laws I'm all for that. The moment YOUR rights start to "trample" on parental rights to further an "adult" agenda is where I stand on the other side of the line. Your rights are doing that. if marriage is redefined then the possibility of same sex literature being is schools is not some "never going to happen" scenario.

You can tell people that No on 1 isn't going to affect them or schools but that's a LIE if anyone researches it they will find LEGAL cases where judges having been ruling on it. However, in states where marriage is NOT redefined this isn't going on.

So, that's PART of the reason I am voting YES on 1. You can try to discredit me etc, but again all people have to do is go read in google. "GOOGLE is your friend"

END REPOST

Becky Gunn God is love, he loves people enough to bring correction into their lives. Homosexuality is sin. God hates the sin even when he loves the person involved in the sin. If your child jumps from a cliff and dies on the rocks below, it doesn't mean you, the loving parent wanted your child to die for his stupidity but death is still the result of the child's own actions. As spiritual death will be the end result of living as a homosexual. The soul that sins shall die. Homosexuals WILL burn in eternal hell fire and shame shame shame on you Becky Gunn for your false teaching. There is a place in hell 7 times hotter reserved for false teachers. You are leading people astray, away from God and from truth and you will be accountable for each lie you have told! That doesn't mean God does not love you, he loves you enough that he gave you his word to learn his ways but instead you have twisted HIS holy words to mold him into your own warped image. repent while you still have time, and too bad for the gay people you have led astray who have already passed on into hell because of your false teaching!

Adam Flanders: Wonderful post....and good to reread those passages from the Bible you quoted there. Interesting how some of those passages get dismissed, or overlooked , by some.

JD: You never seem to get that answer.

Agreed cher. Adam Flanders post was quite articulate and refreshing.

Good to see so many can see through the smoke screen:)

VOTE NO ON ONE

MaineMom73, you are IMO not 100% informed about the education issue, excerpt from:

https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5841/images/Ad%20Rebuttal%2009-17-09.pdf

"To: Members of Maine Media

From: Senate President Elizabeth Mitchell (Vassalboro); Speaker of the House Hannah

Pingree (North Haven); Representative Emily Cain (Orono); Former Attorney

General Steven Rowe; Former Attorney General James Tierney; Dean Peter

Pitegoff*, University of Maine School Of Law; David Cluchey*, Professor,

University of Maine School of Law

Re: Yes on 1 (Stand for Marriage) Advertisements of Sept. 15, 2009

Date: Sept. 18, 2009

https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5841/images/Ad%20Rebuttal%2009-17-09.pdf

In Maine, Marriage is Taught At Home, Not At School.

Whatever the situation in other states, Maine’s public school curriculum is governed by

state-wide learning standards.** “Marriage” of any sort does not appear in those broad

guidelines about what must be taught in Maine’s public schools for any grade level.

Question 1 is not about schools or the curriculum, but about whether committed same-sex

couples in Maine can join in marriage. Instruction about marriage, if it happens, happens

in the home.

The television ad noted “Parker v. Hurley, 414 F.3d 87” as support for the claim that

“Homosexual marriage taught in the public schools – whether parents like it or not.” A

similarly false claim is made in the radio ad.

Mr. Parker lives in Lexington, Mass., where state law since the 1990s has required age

appropriate education about the “diversity of the Commonwealth.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

69, § 1D. At the elementary level, schools teach children about “the significance of

Family generally” and desire students to be able to “[d]escribe different types of

families.” “Marriage” is not taught.

The Parkers objected to a book that came home in their son’s “Diversity Book Bag called

“Who’s In A Family?” As Steve Wessler, Executive Director of the Center for the

Prevention of Hate Violence, testified at the Legislature’s public hearing on the bill, the

book is about the love parents have for their children and the love children have for their

parents. It features drawings of many types of families. One family is two women and

their two children. The text of that page is as follows: “Laura and Kyle live with their

two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give

Daisy her bath.” This book says nothing about “marriage, but is the “indoctrination” Mr.

Parker complained of at the public hearing and in federal court.

In the same lawsuit, another family complained that the fairy tale picture book King &

King was read to their son in the second grade. It is about a prince whose mother wants

him to marry a princess, but he falls in love with and marries another prince. They then

rule the kingdom together. Like many other books read to the class, it was not discussed.

Both the Federal District Court and United States Court of Appeals rejected the claims

that mere exposure to these books infringed on the parents’ rights parental or religious

rights Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87, 102 (1st Cir. 2008) (“[W]e have found no federal

case under the Due Process Clause which has permitted parents to demand an exemption

for their children from exposure to certain books used in public schools.”). Neither child

was forced to affirm anything or punished for their beliefs. Parker, 514 F. 3d at 105. As

the Federal Appeals Court noted, the parents remain free to instruct their children

differently and at home. Parker, 514 F.3d at 105.

Whatever the situation in other states, in Maine, the Learning Results control the broad

content of the curriculum, and “marriage” is not part of those. The Learning Results are

not due for review until 2015.†† Moreover, the local community always has a check on

the process since the specific implementation of the Learning Results is accomplished at

the local level.

If the ad refers to the Comprehensive Family Life Education program, something recently

suggested by Pastor Bob Emrich. See Bill Nemitz, “Gay marriage critic’s email fails the

test,” Portland Press Herald, Sept. 11, 2009 (when teachers instruct students about

“marriage” under “the curriculum,” they would have no choice but to include same-sex

marriage in their lesson plans”). This is simply wrong. Again, that program does not

involve marriage. 22 Me. Rev. Stat. § 1902 (1-A) (describing program). Second, the

program is entirely elective for parents. While the education under that program is not

required at schools, but when it does occur in schools, parents have a right to opt out their

children if they choose. 22 Me. Rev. Stat. § 1910. Moreover, the law further provides

that family life education should be “construed to protect the rights of all persons to

pursue their religious beliefs, to follow the dictates of their own consciences, to prevent

imposition upon any person’s moral standards and to respect the right of every person to

self-determination in respect to family planning.” 22 Me. Rev. Stat. § 1909.

** See 20-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 4711 (basic course of study); 20-A Me. Rev. Stat. se. 6209 (Department

of Education to prepare learning results); 20-A Me. Rev. Stat. § 4502 (learning results implemented at local

level)."

This and other 'claims' by the ad are misinformation, selected information, or distortions.

Jack B.

HRH, first let me thank you for your thoughts and prayers for my family.

You mentioned in an earlier post "this "special group" " Others have also talked about "special rights". Under the Maine Human Rights Act, I am considered "special" in regards to employment, housing, credit, education, etc. (ie) Why am I 'special' - well 1) I am human 2) I have a race (Caucasian) 3) I have a color (not exactly 'white' but close enough) 4) I have a sex/gender - male 5) I have a sexual orientation - heterosexual 6) Physical/Mental disability - I have a learning disability 7) I have a religion - protestant 8) I have a marital status - married 9) I have an ancestry - English/Scottish. 10) I have an age - Not too young and not too old 11) I have a familial status - five children under the age of 18. I'm sure you are considered 'special' too in relation to all of these categories. Because I am 'special' I can't be discriminated against because of any of my answers. I cannot be segregated or separated or limited in my pursuit of employment, housing, credit, education etc.

Specifics of Mr. Heath's proposed initiative for 2010:

* Clarify marriage law limiting the institution of marriage to one man and one woman.

* Forbid the establishment of civil unions.

* Clarify adoption law to allow only one person, or a married couple, to adopt.

* Remove the designation "sexual orientation" from the Maine Human Rights Act.

* Eliminate funding for the Maine attorney general’s school civil rights team program.

For all of you touting the establishment of "Civil Unions" - please notice #2. Do you think Mr. Heath et.al. will accept them? Do you really think that those who support repealing this law will allow them?

Jack B.

free2bee: Excellent....re the accurate information concerning "special rights" or "special groups". Really makes one think, doesn't it!!

realist38, Whether you like it or not, you and I are both animals, so your sexual behavior is animal in nature no less than mine is. Animal behavior certainly does explain what you do in your bedroom. Desire is hard-wired into us all, though there is variation in the object of desire. Also you talked about how revolted you are by monkey behavior, but the Bonobos I mentioned are APES, not monkeys. There are significant differences in intelligence between these two groups of primates.

Chances are most animal species you do like have homosexual members as a minority. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior for an accessible list by common name of mammals that display homosexual behavior. The list includes domestic cats, dogs, horses, sheep and cattle and many more exotic wild mammals. For birds see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_birds_displaying_homosexual_behavior. Tis list includes such graceful avians as Black Swans, Stellar's Sea Eagle, the little Kestrel hawks and several Penguin species.

If a god (or gods) made these homosexual animals, then why could not have made gay men and lesbians be made in the same way?

Homosexuality is not deviant behavior, it is common for men and women to have same sex experiences of some sort in their lifetimes, even if they are not gay. Only some people are primarily or exclusively homosexual. Being gay or lesbian is a normal, though uncommon, variation of human sexuality. Exit polls from recent elections in the US and UK show about 4-6% of people will now tell poll takers they are gay or lesbian. This probably is an undercount, because not everyone who is gay is going to admit that to some random stranger. So if around 5% of Mainers are gay or lesbian, then there are more homosexuals in Maine than all racial minorities combined, and of course homosexuality is seen in all races of humans too.

SteveK-whew, that took you a while. I never stated I was "revolted by monkey behavior". I said I won't justify my sexuality by comparing myself to a nasty primate. Go googling again!LOL!

QUOTE:

>>>MaineMom73, you are IMO not 100% informed about the education issue<<<

Yes I am. Are you next to me or something watching what I read over the computer to know how informed I am or not? I never said they were starting curriculum.

I'll try to use different english words:

I SAID:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"For me, the issue issue is with children. You can tell me "all day' it won't ever be in schools. That, however is NOT true. News article say otherwise."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45844 (Court ruling)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. IF marriage had NOT been redefined at all- THAT NEWS STORY would never of happened!

That's what I am saying. So I understand PERFECTLY for MY vote- MY YES on #1.

I'm not saying they are developing a curriculum or anything else. I'm saying that redefining marriage has the potential to bring CASES AND NEWS just like I pointed out. States that have NOT redefined marriage have not had ANY of this.

That's just truth and why GOOGLE is a friend to all. DO your research and make an informed vote. That's something the Maine Equality group doesn't want you to do. That's what I did researched all of it on my own and made an INFORMED decision.

As I said- DEAL WITH MY YES ON #1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes cher I am still waiting and I am sure I will be waiting just as long for MaineMom73 to answer a direct question as I will forHimToday. They and others keep making pronouncments and when challenged, ignore the questions asked. Well that is their God given right, but it does make them look rather silly.

MaineMom73 when I Googled FEMA I learned we have death camps and coffins sitting on the side of the road in the south. Not everything you find on the Web is accurate. In fact, much of what you find is very inaccurate in one detail or the other.

MaineMom73 , you are playing the `what if`game. As of right now and at least until 2015 the Maine Learning Results stand as they are.

If you look at the other assertions made by the ad(s) they have NOTHING to do with same-gender marriage but one could say: case of doctor in California - if gays and lesbians could still be discriminated against and she would not have been in the predicament she placed herself in, the case of the church loosing its tax exemption - it was not the church but a piece of property they owned - if it was still legal to discriminate it would not have happened - however they offered the property for public use, paid for by those who used it and refused to let that couple use it, the photographer - a business offering services to the public - again if it was legal to discriminate it would not have happened.

Deal with my vote canceling yours.

Jack B. (still have a right to vote in Maine)

And THERE we have it!!!!

The "what if" game is not "what if" IF it happens. It was WHAT if in MA, and became "reality" there.

Are you saying the possibility DOES NOT exist?

I don't WANT the possibility. It happening in MA is close enough for me. Show me a state where marriage was NOT redefined and there was ANY issue like the one in MA. There was that issue in MA BECAUSE marriage was redefined.

The possibility does NOT exist if marriage is NOT redefined. Kinda cut and dry there.

And GREAT your vote cancels mine, my husband's cancels your friends and yada yada yada. I don't really care how you vote.

Just leave me to MY YES on #1

Same-sex marriage has been legalized in four of the 50 states:

In Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont, marriages for same sex couples are legal and currently performed.

In New Hampshire, same-sex marriages will begin on January 1, 2010.

In California, same-sex marriages were performed between June 16, 2008 and November 4, 2008. The marriages that were performed during this period are still recognized.

In New York and Washington, D.C., same-sex marriages from other states or foreign countries are recognized but they are not performed.

Now other than Massachusetts, can you name one other state where same sex marriage is legal and the issues you identify as occurring in Massachusetts are occurring in one of the following states:

Connecticut

Iowa

Vermont

New Hampshire

California

I patiently await your answer.

JD: It is a good thing you are so patient!

"Very silly" indeed...but as you have heard, it is their call!!!!

realist: "A nasty primate"??? That is sad..Wow...What an "education" one gets here. I have never heard that one before!!

QUOTE JD2008

>>>>>Now other than Massachusetts, can you name one other state where same sex marriage is legal and the issues you identify as occurring in Massachusetts are occurring in one of the following states: <<<<

First off, I appreciate you actually wanting a discussion about it. I want to compliment you on that. I appreicate it and thank you. On to your points though. :)

California:

Reuter's article TITLE. "California okays lessons on gays in textbooks"

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ca-senate-passes-mandatory-gay-history-bill

"SCHOOL FIELD TRIP TO TEACHER'S LESBIAN WEDDING SPARKS CONTROVERSY"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436961,00.html

Public schools become focus of gay marriage ban

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-24-1108208155_x.htm

Connecticut:

Article TITLE " Signing of gay marriage law changes the game at schools"

"It doesn't require it to be taught and it doesn't say it CAN'T be taught," he said

http://www.thehour.com/story/468452

.... That should be enough from my google search to make my point about how the POSSIBILITY of it being in schools DOES exist.

Furthermore A QUOTE:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/4/gr040404.html

"Only nine states mention sexual orientation or homosexuality. South Carolina prohibits any discussion of sexual orientation and Utah prohibits "the advocacy of homosexuality." Both Massachusetts and New Jersey require discussion of sexual orientation but do not provide content standards. The other five states—Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oklahoma—require that discussions of homosexuality treat it as abnormal or dangerous. For example, sexuality education classes in Alabama must include "an emphasis, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state."

....So YES these things CAN happen. All this is really is a social experiment using the states that passed it and the children as guinea pigs. We don't know how damaging it is yet with the social implications. I DO NOT want to find out.

I am voting YES on #1.

NO on 1!

Viper13, are you kidding me or are you incredibly ignorant?

Cut- noun, a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

the members of such a religion or sect.

Christianity is absolutely a cult by definition, If you are not smart enough to know the meaning of a simple common word, and not bright enough to look it up on the internet, then how can anything that you say be taken as credible?

Reuter's article TITLE. "California okays lessons on gays in textbooks" - Yes it passed the Senate and was forwarded to the Assembly. It was in 2006 and I could find no reference if it passed the General Assembly and/or if the Governor signed it or not.

"SCHOOL FIELD TRIP TO TEACHER'S LESBIAN WEDDING SPARKS CONTROVERSY" - Do they still require parental permission slips for school field trips? Isn't the parent the one ultimately responsible for a child attending a wedding, gay or otherwise?

Public schools become focus of gay marriage ban - Well this is an interesting article talking about how prior to the vote on Prop 8 the opponents were running ads which were urging people to vote for the repeal of same sex marriage to "protect the children". The truly interesting piece is California law already requires the schools to teach tolerance and anti-homosexual discrimination. That law according to this article has been in place for "years".

Article TITLE " Signing of gay marriage law changes the game at schools" - well this article talks about the state law which seems to mirror the law in Maine. It protects religious institutions from being charged with discrimination if the refuse to provide services for same sex marriages. No where in the body of the article does it state the law is forcing the school systems to teach homosexual lifestyle in the schools. It also states that parents have the right to remove the student from any life-style classes the find objectionable.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/04/4/gr040404.html - Your final point is from 2001 and if you are attempting to use this as proof that same sex marriage leads to the teaching of homosexualtiy in the schools your time line is a bit off. The report indicates that the discussion was in the classroom were occurring in 2001 and same sex marriage was legalized in 2004. Further, the report indicates "Most states where parents have the option to withdraw their children from a class allow them to exercise that option for any reason. However, five states—Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Vermont—require that the withdrawal of the student be based on religious or moral beliefs." So, as a parent if you do not want your child to be exposed to a discussion of sexual orientation, you have the right to remove your child from the class.

It also seems that 8-9 years have passed since the above report was published. That means we have 8-9 years of data to look at and determine if what you fear is truly happening.

Having grown up during the desegregation movement, many of the same arguments being made today (i.e. exposing young children to divergent "life" experiences) were made then. Parents did not want there child bussed from the "white" school to the "black" school. The black "neighborhoods" were to dangerous. Parents keep their children out of school. Parents threw rocks, protested, etc...riot police were needed to keep parents away from each other. But here is the interesting thing.....THE KIDS DIDN'T CARE...The kids learned that skin color made no difference...It was the parents that made the problem bigger...it was the parents that had irrational fears of what the kids would learn, happen, etc...I firmly believe that the case is the same today...the KIDS DO NOT CARE...it is the parents which are creating a problem where one does not exist.

TO JD2008

I like the whole discussion aspect of this. It's much better than having to "repeat" myself of why I am casting my "Yes" on 1. At least this is a productive conversation. Even if you and I NEVER agree at least this is a proper debate of points. On to your post :)

>>>Reuter's article TITLE. "California okays lessons on gays in textbooks" - Yes it passed the Senate and was forwarded to the Assembly. It was in 2006 and I could find no reference if it passed the General Assembly and/or if the Governor signed it or not.<<<<

We we agree that this event occurred. That this "passed" the senate? My point is that it was even brought to the senate. This is a state you named and same sex marriage seems to have "obviously" affected education. If not affected there would have been nothing that went to the senate.

>>>>"SCHOOL FIELD TRIP TO TEACHER'S LESBIAN WEDDING SPARKS CONTROVERSY" - Do they still require parental permission slips for school field trips? Isn't the parent the one ultimately responsible for a child attending a wedding, gay or otherwise?<<<<

They do! But the issue here is that it is presented as so acceptable that a field trip slip was written and printed out FOR parents to sign.

>>>Public schools become focus of gay marriage ban - Well this is an interesting article talking about how prior to the vote on Prop 8 the opponents were running ads which were urging people to vote for the repeal of same sex marriage to "protect the children". The truly interesting piece is California law already requires the schools to teach tolerance and anti-homosexual discrimination. That law according to this article has been in place for "years".<<<<

The article also says this:

*Teachers in large, diverse districts now strive to make their sex education lessons relevant to straight, gay and bisexual students, Sinks said. "We're talking about really refraining from using things like, husband-wife, boyfriend-girlfriend, those kind of things, and just say 'partner,'" she said.*

So, we can agree that is happening or does happen in CA? Yet, it's not happening in other states not so friendly to the gay marriage agenda.

>>>>Your final point is from 2001 and if you are attempting to use this as proof that same sex marriage leads to the teaching of homosexualtiy in the schools your time line is a bit off.<<<

Actually the last thing with the information, this:

*"Only nine states mention sexual orientation or homosexuality. South Carolina prohibits any discussion of sexual orientation and Utah prohibits "the advocacy of homosexuality." Both Massachusetts and New Jersey require discussion of sexual orientation but do not provide content standards. The other five states—Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oklahoma—require that discussions of homosexuality treat it as abnormal or dangerous. For example, sexuality education classes in Alabama must include "an emphasis, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state." *

Was posted by me to be more informational to show about other states. I don't for example agree with alabama and it being a criminal offense. I don't agree with dangerous either. It does demonstrate the different stances some states may take.

>>>Having grown up during the desegregation movement, many of the same arguments being made today (i.e. exposing young children to divergent "life" experiences) were made then. Parents did not want there child bussed from the "white" school to the "black" school. The black "neighborhoods" were to dangerous. Parents keep their children out of school. Parents threw rocks, protested, etc...riot police were needed to keep parents away from each other. But here is the interesting thing.....THE KIDS DIDN'T CARE...The kids learned that skin color made no difference...It was the parents that made the problem bigger...it was the parents that had irrational fears of what the kids would learn, happen, etc...I firmly believe that the case is the same today...the KIDS DO NOT CARE...it is the parents which are creating a problem where one does not exist.<<<

This one has no merit with me as I find the two uncomparable. When the National Guard is called because gays are being beaten and the police won't do anything, then we can compare it to that.

Also, we are talking about same sex relationships. That is not a physical attribute such as the color of skin or one's gender.

One thing I think that needs mentioning is this is NOT just about rights for same sex couples. This is about changing marriage for "everybody". Marriage affects all of us. Everyone knows someone who is married etc.

Here is a recent Vermont result the article notes the passage of the same sex law:

ARTICLE: Transgender Vt. teen wants genderless bathrooms

"Vermont was the first state in the country that allowed same sex couples to form civil unions and earlier this year the Legislature approved same-sex marriage. State law also includes the Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Act of 2007"

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jL9sk-LSF-N4MbVll1Pmw3vTalWQD9ABGA3O2

That is not a good thing in my opinion at all that the above is happening in Vermont. I'm just not seeing all these positive results. I am reading that Iowa is solid in their divide.

Like I said, this isn't just about marriage for same sex couples. This is about marriage which affects EVERYONE.

Again, I am voting YES on #1. For me, that is the right choice.

mainemom, i agree with you 100%

i will also be voting yes on 1

I would have had a lot more self esteem and a lot less self hatred staying in the closet until I was 28 if I had some education about homosexuality. Homosexuals are a part of society, we are not doing this to be defiant to the rest of the world.

People are often scared of things that they don't understand, and their reaction to this is often overreaction and sometimes violence. If children are taught that homosexuals are valid members of society, then maybe there would be less misunderstanding and less fear. This is not about teaching them homosexual sex education, I mean does an elementary student need to be taught how their parents have sex for their relationship to be valid?

If children are taught that different ways of life are not always "bad" then they will be more tolerant.

There is mounting evidence that homosexuality is a born trait, but you don't have to tell a homosexual this, we already know it. I spent a great part of my life feeling as though I didn't fit in, I tried, I really did, but it wasn't until I admitted to myself at age 28 that I was gay that I was able to finally love who I was and move on with life. My friends and family tell me how much I have blossomed and how much more content that I am. I had no gay roll models, I thought that being gay was what you saw on TV, and I was nothing like that, so I was so confused, but if the gay life had been treated as more normal, I wouldn't have hated myself for so long, and contemplated ending it all.

The more we treat anyone different and separate, the more misunderstanding and the more prejudice will spread.

MikeinNC: I am just so glad you have found acceptance and contentment now. You deserve it, just as anyone else.

Children have to be taught to hate. Hopefully, we are getting closer to the day when there will be less and less of that!

Once again, no church will be forced to marry anyone. Same sex couples and any children they parent will be benefited by same sex marriage being legal (certain protections, and the dignity of having their commitment recognized and validated); this will not affect the marriages of heterosexual couples.

Vote No on 1

MaineMom73 - funny you didn't address my points in regards to "if anti-discrimination laws hadn't been passed". You seem to be voting based on the education issue alone? The Maine Learning Results are not due for changes until 2015. If the issue comes up then I'm sure it will be dealt with fairly. I'm certain an overwhelming majority of both heterosexual and homosexual orientations in the state of Maine do not wish sex education to be taught to elementary age students. That is totally inappropriate and if it were I as a father would not allow my kids involved in it. Public schools are just that, public and have a duty to provide for children of all religions, races, ethnicity and family structures. They have a duty to respect all these things and the rights of all students. I'm not particularly fond of "Cinderella" as it depicts step-parenting in a negative light among other things, but I wouldn't ask schools to eliminate it from their libraries. Parents have a duty to oversee their childrens' education - if one doesn't think the public school system is sufficient or appropriate then we all have the right to home-school or find a private or religious -based school that meets our needs. Education is mandated but public schools are not.

I don't know how old your children are - if they are of an age where "sex education" is taught then I think you will find it hasn't been exclusively related to male/female practices for many years. Kids are encouraged to ask questions in a safe environment. The focus is on abstinence, safe practices, protection from STDs and AIDS. Parents have to give consent for this class. A parent or group of parents who does/do not want their child 'exposed' to it does not have the right to deny access to it for the rest of their child's peers.

My wife and I lived in small community in eastern Maine (less than 2000 people). Our children attended a public school with children of same-gender couples, there may be children being raised by same-gender couples in your district also (I would be surprised if there weren't). Your children are 'exposed' to these children and are probably aware the these kids live in different family than theirs, whether you approve of it or not. Young children are very accepting of others with differences - be they disabilities, skin color, family arrangements etc. It is later that they learn to notice the differences and judge their peers based on these differences. They learn to point out the differences in negative ways. Where does that 'learning' come from? Do children deserve to be defined in a negative way because of those differences? It is 'right' and 'moral' to negate/ban a significant fact in one child's life - his/her family - because you don't want your own child 'exposed' to it?

Sincerely

Jack B.

QUOTEFREE2BEE

>>>MaineMom73 - funny you didn't address my points in regards to "if anti-discrimination laws hadn't been passed"<<<<<<

I apologize. I didn't mean not to answer. I missed it from responding to other stuff and what not. :)

In regards to your point, it is mute. We do have anti- discrimination laws. People can't discriminate against you for beng pregnant a whistleblower, black, overweight etc.

Cinderella and the fairytale is hardly comparable. The moral of Cinderella is that as long as you are kind natured and a truly good person, your dreams will come true. Not about step families.

>>>>>I'm certain an overwhelming majority of both heterosexual and homosexual orientations in the state of Maine do not wish sex education to be taught to elementary age students. That is totally inappropriate and if it were I as a father would not allow my kids involved in it.<<<<

If that was REALLY true then those links I posted earlier should not exist. They do.

No one is teaching kids hate. Same sex is not the majority or the norm. Same sex should not be shown as a norm in schools. It sure as heck shouldn't even be touching grade schools.

As I said, this isn't just about same sex marriage rights. Changing marriage affects everyone. This discussion seems to go towards how great this is for same-sex couples and "what's wrong" with the rest of us? Why are we denying them rights like "everyone" else.

No one is denying anyone anything. Go for domestic partnership/union etc. I'm not for redefining marriage so that the gay agenda can move forward. Not at the price of children for what is no more than a social experiment.

QUOTE CHER

>>>>>Children have to be taught to hate. Hopefully, we are getting closer to the day when there will be less and less of that!<<<<<<

No one again is teaching hate. Has there been some lynching in the news I missed?

My children are open and good and don't judge people on their skin weight etc. They don't know enough about sex to under stand same-sex anything. My son is in 6th grade, my daughter in 2nd grade.

And here is where I say your rights "trample" on everyone elses's.

It seems that in schools that schools would be able to introduce such material to "teach" about family dynamics. It doesn't say they should teach it or they will OR that they can't.

What happens if a gay teacher or a straight teacher takes the "initiative" to introduce my 2nd grade daughter and her class to a book called the Queen and Queen? They are not 'restricted" from doing so.

How "fair" is that? She comes home 8 years old and I'm forced to explain stuff, I shouldn't have to about a lifestyle I don't participate in. A lifestyle that is not the majority or the norm. I mean she has a female and male for parents. All of a sudden she learns a "new" way? The 2 Kings and 2 Queens can be together? OH! parents have to give permission? Say that I do not. Don't I still have to deal with what sally sue at school tells her because Sally's mom said yes and the two children talked and sally told my daughter everything she learned? My daughter then comes home and I have to explain a lifestyle I shouldn't have to. And, this happens because a sexual minority of our society seeks to further the agenda and redefine marriage. A Minority lifestyle shouldn't be shoved down people's throats like the gay agenda is.

No, she shouldn't have ANY exposure to that stuff. She should get to be 8, deal with that families "usually" consist on a female mom and dad. All that same sex stuff can be for when she is waaay older. An age where she can decide for herself whether it is right, wrong, etc. Not just have it put on her that it's "accepted and normal" in society. It is not the majority or norm where humans are concerned.

QUOTE MIKEinNC:

>>>>>I would have had a lot more self esteem and a lot less self hatred staying in the closet until I was 28 if I had some education about homosexuality. Homosexuals are a part of society, we are not doing this to be defiant to the rest of the world.<<<<<

And because it is not the norm or the majority or the standard of society if someone late in HS or something likes the same sex then they can talk to their parents or a teacher. That hardly constitutes redefining marriage. There is NO reason to redefine marriage.

>>>>People are often scared of things that they don't understand, and their reaction to this is often overreaction and sometimes violence. If children are taught that homosexuals are valid members of society, then maybe there would be less misunderstanding and less fear. This is not about teaching them homosexual sex education, I mean does an elementary student need to be taught how their parents have sex for their relationship to be valid?<<<<<

The arguement that people are just afraid of gays is a poor one. I don't think people voting Yes on 1 are afraid in any way. Just because people DO NOT want marriage redefined does not make them hateful, bigots, or anything else!

People have religious reasons, moral reasons, educational reasons etc. If you ask me from recent BDN article comments it sure seems the other way around. You get crucified and ridiculed if want to vote YES on 1.

You hear this stuff on TV that "StandforMarriage" is lying about marriage redefined and an affect on education. It sure seems obvious to me- that it HAS an effect. If it did not then how did I find all those effects going on and link to the news stories? The ad never states that it's going to be taught in classrooms. However again- it's obviously showing itself in "various" ways throughout education in some states as shown in my previous posts.

((scroll up in BDN comments))

I'm all for IRS 1040's and the like, death bed visits etc. It's one thing to add to give "more" rights civil unions/partnerships etc. It is quite another to redefine marriage. Redefining marriage is to redefine an integral part of society and change it. A change that affects families, children, education etc. I do not support that at ALL. Redefining marriage affects everyone, so I hope we can stop making this just about same-sex and THEIR rights. Everyone else has rights too.

Again, why I am voting YES on #1. WITHOUT ANY HATE FOR ANYONE!!!!!! :)

MaineMom73 - Cinderella is a fairytale and has been 'banned' in some schools etc because of its depiction of the 'evil step-mother and step-sisters', you may not see it that way but others do. So I guess I see where you are coming from in the way we disagree on "Who's In a Family" and "King and King".

My point about anti-discrimination is moot? The other issues sited in the ad are directly linked to the anti-discrimination laws of those states - yet they are being touted as reasons to repeal this law. They are not being presented in a truthful manner. Also, regarding your links - they are not from the state of Maine,my quote " I'm certain an overwhelming majority of both heterosexual and homosexual orientations in the state of Maine do not wish sex education to be taught to elementary age students." If sex ed is taught in the classroom your 2nd grader attends (I'm talking about "sex ed" - abstinence, safe sex practices, STDs and AIDS prevention etc) or in the links you site, please post it, I'm sure many people will address it - and I would have thought it would be all over the papers. Your 6th grader - perhaps you should sit down with him and find out what he knows and doesn't know - most boys at that age have "learned" things from peers - many boys that age have discovered that there are differences between girls and boys and are curious.

Back to Cinderella a minute - "The moral of Cinderella is that as long as you are kind natured and a truly good person, your dreams will come true." My wife and I are friends with, acquainted with and relatives of "kind-natured and a truly good people" who are gay and lesbian individuals and couples - they are hoping their dreams of being legally entering into a civil marriage will come true, that is what this law is about.

Jack B. (1/2 Straight Couple For Marriage Equality)

MaineMom73 I am really curious how civil unions would not change what is/may be taught in public schools. You say you would support civil unions but you cannot support same sex marriage. Fair enough, but how would that change what is being taught in public schools? Remember, Vermont had civil unions (6+ years anyway) long before they moved to same sex marriage this year. I truly hope that you will address this point as no one seems to want to address it.

Incidentially, parents teach hate and fear to children at an early age. Sometimes they teach it unknowingly through comments and actions they do not recognize but teach it they do. When I was growing up I was taught to fear Roman Catholics, I was Protestant. Roman Catholics were not bad people, they just did not believe they same way we did. They did not celebrate the life of Christ but they celebrated his death. The church services were not in english but Latin. So when my second grade teacher decided to get married, she invited her whole class to the wedding at a (GASP!!!!) Catholic Church. I wanted to go, she was my favorite teacher. But on the Saturday of the wedding I did not go out of fear. Fear of the unknown which my parents had taught me unknowingly by what they had said about the church.

Fear is learned. It is not inborn. We teach our children to fear many things by our actions and comments. I am not sure how old you are but I am guessing you may have been born in 1973 based on your screen name. While you say that homosexuals cannot be compared to the civil rights struggle of the 1960's the comparison is a fair one. Blacks were being discriminated against based on the color of their skin. They were treated as second class citizens. They were not afforded the same rights as every other U.S. citizen enjoys. In many cases, when they protested they were beaten, had fire hoses turned on them, had K-9's attack them by the very people sworn to protect them. In some cases their church's were bombed and burned. Some were murdered by lynching, shot or blown up in churches.

Why did this time in our history occur? Fear is one reason. Fear that blacks would move into "our" neighborhoods. Fear that blacks would attend "our" schools. Fear that blacks would take "our" jobs. Fear that blacks would change "our" way of life. Etc.....etc.....etc.....

This is the same thing....it is about fear. I have homosexual friends which have been around my child. My daughters day care operator daughter came out in college and we are still friendly with her and her daughter. My daughter did not "become" gay because she was exposed to gay people at an early age. She did not "become" gay because her day care operators daughter came out while out daughter was still in middle school. But she does not "fear" gays either. She recognizes them for who they are....a person just like her with a different sexual orientation from her.

I know no one is going to change your mind on how you are going to vote. But maybe these back and forth exchanges will change someone else's mind who is on the fence. I have read much from all points of view on these pages and both sides make valid points. But both sides have used hate as one weapon to beat the other side over the head with. Both sides have used innuendo, half truths, misinformation, etc....too.

Hope you have a good day and don't neglect the papers for your professors.

free2bee its a sexual perversion. Bank robbers can be kind and compassionate. Bank robbers can also be teachers, firemen, doctors, lawyers, plumbers dog catchers etc... Don't want my kids learning how to best rob a bank and don't want my children being taught thats its okay to be perverted. Shouldn't have to take my kids out of school when its being taught, it shouldn't be taught in the first place. It is not an acceptable alternate life. It is a sexual perversion that deserves no more rights than anyone else including redefining marriage.

As for non-traditional sexual practices-that is a red herring in this argument. Everything the opposition can think of that two men, married or not to each other, do with each other in the bedroom a man and woman, married to each other or not, can do with each other as well. The actual sex act is a non-issue and is used only to scare those who are not fully aware of the real issue.

This tactic of deflection is transparent and won't fool Mainers. Any argument that can be made about how horrible homosexuals are can be turned around to show how horrible heterosexuals are. Stereotypes and generalizations are all those who oppose marriage equality have.

Mr. Heath has asked in a recent blog post, "Are all aspects of the homosexual subculture as reputable and wholesome as an episode of 'Father Knows Best?'" Anyone who can think for him- or herself can see that question and ask the same thing about the heterosexual culture.

I truly believe that if some of the people leading the opposition had their way, we would all be forced back into the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver-the man working and the wife at home. Few minorities around. Everyone knowing EXACTLY their place in society-like it or not. Pink dresses for girls and blue trousers for boys. No deviation. Ever.

Joe

QUOTEJD2008

>>>>>I know no one is going to change your mind on how you are going to vote. But maybe these back and forth exchanges will change someone else's mind who is on the fence. I have read much from all points of view on these pages and both sides make valid points. But both sides have used hate as one weapon to beat the other side over the head with. Both sides have used innuendo, half truths, misinformation, etc....too.<<<<<<

I agree with you whole-heartedly! These exchanges may change someone's mind one way or the other. Given the fact that you are as polite as I am this is good.

I have not used any misinformation. Nor do I think you have. I do think you strike a point that both organizations have done what you claim though.

>>>>Hope you have a good day and don't neglect the papers for your professors<<<<

*Grins*

I did thanks! I got 2 papers done and actually ahead in one class :)

QUOTE REGULARJOE:

>>>>>>I truly believe that if some of the people leading the opposition had their way, we would all be forced back into the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver-the man working and the wife at home. Few minorities around. Everyone knowing EXACTLY their place in society-like it or not. Pink dresses for girls and blue trousers for boys. No deviation. Ever.<<<<<<<<<<<<

That's not true. Or, at least not for me. I believe in society changing and growing. I just don't believe we need to redefine marriage. Again, I think other laws can be made expanded to give the same things without redefining marriage to do it.

MaineMom, you were accused of playing the "what if" game. free2bee hit that nail right on the head with that statement When you give small minorities "equal" rights, they turn into "special" rights and us "oddities" (straight people) end up getting the shaft. There will be no end if this is passed, luckily I believe it will not be.

chersully2000, you're offended that I called a masturbating monkey nasty? LOL. What an "education" one gets here from the NO side. Just mad because you cannot attack me for my religious beliefs because we know how your side feels about the bible. LOFL.

VOTE YES ON #1.

QUOTE REALIST38

>>>>MaineMom, you were accused of playing the "what if" game.<<<<

I was, and hopefully I have shown that it is not what if. There is an effect. There has been affects in states from legalizing same sex marriage.

QUOTE JD2008

>>>>>MaineMom73 I am really curious how civil unions would not change what is/may be taught in public schools. You say you would support civil unions but you cannot support same sex marriage. Fair enough, but how would that change what is being taught in public schools? Remember, Vermont had civil unions (6+ years anyway) long before they moved to same sex marriage this year. I truly hope that you will address this point as no one seems to want to address it.<<<<<<

In the states it has been passed, the affect is shown via the news articles cited in my prior posts, cause and effect. In states where gay marriage is not legal it doesn't make marriage genderless. It establishes a heterosexual relationship as a societal standard.

Marriage pre-dates the constitution. Marriage licenses are not discriminating. They don't give dog licenses to cats and that's not bigoted. A Civil Union/Marriage is a "public act". Same sex couples are welcome to have a "union" ceremony. Marriage should not be redefined.

What I think is that a YES on 1 is "preventive" of things like this:

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California

Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

I'd rather Maine for this issue be more like Arizona. Arizona's Sex education Model is this:

Status of Gay Marriage/Civil Unions

State law defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. Attempt to modify constitution failed in 2006.

Sex Education Model

State does not mandate sex education, but requires Abstinence Only if taught. Parental notification for attendance required. If provided, sex education must be medically accurate, but cannot promote a “homosexual lifestyle,” portray “homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style,” or “suggest that some methods of sex are safe methods of homosexual sex.”

http://www.caitlainscorner.com/content/view/347/

I think children should have that model above. I think we keep that above model ALOT more by voting YES on #1

More screaming that the world is ending because society is changing in ways you don't like.

Mankind will not end. The USA will not go away. Society will just accept things that you don't like and life will go on.

That's it. Nothing more.

Get used to it: it's happening without marriage, and will continue to happen if this is voted down.

The world continues to get better and better regarding civil treatment of all people. Isn't it great/

Oh, yeah...

VOTE NO ON 1!!!

There is no rational reason to not extend marriage equality!

how do you know mankind will not end?

how do you know the USA will not go away?

how do you know life will just go on?

how do you know? Just an opinion? Just a little hypocrisy there tedlick.

No it's not hypocrisy... it's FAITH! Faith because we've been through so much worse in the past.

THAT makes it hypocrisy for you, oh ye of little faith.

opinions seem to upset you so much unless of course its your own. That is the hypocrisy. We probably have the same amount of faith, you just follow a different god than I do. In the end your god loses big time.

Ah 4Him... you know I follow no god: you just like to side me with your bogeyman.

You could always go to Africa with Heath... you too would find less "resistance"...

LOL!

So then Ted, your saying in the end people *have* to accept your agenda?

I'm sorry but I don't believe that.

I don't think that the FLDS should get to have multiple wives and we should change the marriage laws for them anymore than you.

No... I don't think people "have" to do anything but take up space and die, when you get right down to it. And I'm not asking YOU to accept anything. I'm asking my government to extend the same protections and guarantees to same-sex partners. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to: can't force bigotry from a bigot (and by definition, yes, you are being a bigot: don't blame me: I didn't invent the word).

I do think that our government is coming around to accept the idea that treating homosexuals the same as everyone else isn't necessarily a bad idea, and is an idea that the Constitution supports. Them extending equal protections and guarantees doesn't ask anything of you.

As for the FLDS, again, if they can figure out a way to make it work under current tax and inheritance laws, I could care less.

The word is already being redefined... by the society and culture around you. I didn't make it happen. You didn't stop it from happening.

It's a natural process: language evolves.

How good he is at avoiding the issue of his own hypocrisy when its brought to the light. You are a smooth one ted.

mainemom73, the FLDS isn't asking for polygamy to be legalized. they benefit too much from state support for all of their misbegotten children due to their "sister wives" claiming to be single mothers.

realist: I don't often times get your meaning....but that is a good thing, I am quite sure....and have no idea of some of your language...LOFL.....don't know that one....have never heard it. I am sure it is nice though, right?

"Masturbating monkey"......I did not see that first word mentioned in your post. Guess I am supposed to know what you mean then? Nope, I would not, as our minds do not think alike. I do not focus on the sexual aspects so much as you and some seem to do.

And no, realist.....was not "offended" at all. What assumptions!

"Your side" feels about ........you don't know everything, realist, about "sides". Anyway, it isn't all about wars....and your side vs my side....and who "wins". Some people do not think that way all the time as you seem to.

Yes, tedlick, so many people like yourself and free2bee,etc. do see that there has been some progress in the way others are treated (and not just talking about gay people). There is a long way to go in this world though.

I see no hypocrisy. Opinions that can be defended with history, fact, anything from this world are fine.

Opinion on issues of a physical world that are defended by dogma I see as meaningless. You should know that by now. Following faith from a personal level is wonderful, but it's taken to be fact that everyone is supposed to follow, I play the BS card.

If it isn't present in this realm, if it hasn't happened in this realm, I've no faith in it whatsoever.

No one has yet to proved any real-world examples of how same sex marriage is going to destroy mankind or the US. We've survived ice ages, nuclear ages, depressions, wars, famine, and many other things that are so much worse than perceived immorality... hell, we even survived disco! The world will move on and change in ways you and your ilk don't like. But it will not cease to be (nor will the societies that exist within that world). History, both ancient and near, supports that idea.

Hypocrisy? Nah... No faith in the supernatural? Hells yeah.

QUOTE TED:

>>>>I'm asking my government to extend the same protections and guarantees to same-sex partners. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to: can't force bigotry from a bigot (and by definition, yes, you are being a bigot: don't blame me: I didn't invent the word).<<<<

The government doesn't need to redefine marriage to do that.

>>>can't force bigotry from a bigot (and by definition, yes, you are being a bigot: don't blame me: I didn't invent the word).<<<

Indeed true, but your use of the word is improper in its application to me:

n. Bigotry

The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

In order for that to be applicable, I have to be intolerant. I am not, I think you should have all those rights and benefits you want. I just don't think you need to redefine marriage. That doesn't make me intolerant. I respect your vote and view, so that doesn't make me bigoted either.

>>>>As for the FLDS, again, if they can figure out a way to make it work under current tax and inheritance laws, I could care less.<<<<<

We differ here. I am not okay with some guy having 10 wives and to redefine marriage as "multiple unions" or anything else.

The affects of legalizing gay marriage leads to this:

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California

Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

I don't want the gay agenda affecting education "this much" That does NOT make me hateful or anything else.

It sure seems like anyone who wants to vote YES on #1 is some sort of pre-concieved hateful, prejudiced bigot. Sorry then that I don't seem to fit your "stereotype" I'm not just wanting to deny you stuff etc.

All I want is to give you what you want WITHOUT redefining marriage.

Again, with NO HATE, PREJUDICE, or BIGOTRY I am voting YES on #1 ***PROUDLY***

chersully, calm your pretty little self down now. Believe me the sexual aspects of homosexuals were not brought up by me (weak stomach you know). They were used by a NO voter to justify homosexual sex, you should get your facts straight. You talk about assumptions ,that is all you guys do. I simply stated that I am GLAD I don't have to justify my sexual "perversions" to that of a crap (and everything else) slinging monkey. I only do this to hear you and TedLick comment, it's sooooooo amusing, it's the funnest part of my day. Did you have another problem with my "language"? I thought I was using words correctly, are you feeling that you need to correct me because of LOFL. Well, clarify I will. LOL means lots of laughter so LOFL must mean LOTS OF (*&^%$# LAUGHTER. Meaning:EXTRA AMUSING, example:justifying a sexual act because animals do it, that would earn a LOFL. TTFN (That's TATA FOR NOW). What is yours reasoning for the extra punctuation??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????FORGET IT, THAT WAS FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

realist: Btw....I don't mind all the extra punctuation. And I am quite calm, regardless of your admonitions.

Yes, some of us saw the erudite comments from bottled_goodness the other day (I believe he is definitely from "your side"). They were so, whatever, that the BDN removed them promptly , without anyone even having to report the remarks. Anyway....he maybe had disappeared...so perhaps there will not be more of that type of comment....time will tell.

chersully, did they also remove the prostate stimulation comment made by TedLick? I certainly hope so, I almost tossed my cookies on that one!

"The government doesn't need to redefine marriage to do that."

Agreed... and I'd happily take civil unions. Doesn't mean I see a rational reason to not just extend marriage (which, in the end, would be easier and cheaper). As for the redefine, that's happening all over the place on its own. All the "it WILL happen" aftereffects you point out are already happening in places that don't have same-sex marriage. It's reported so much from states like CA and MA because they've always been more liberal, and are now trying this. I don't see it in Iowa... I don't see it in Vermont... I don't see it in New Hampshire... Even then, you're talking about things that we may not like, but that aren't the end-all for our society or species. They don't hurt, and some parents don't object to the teaching.

Hmmm... I'm torn. On the one hand, you say civil unions are fine, which would negate the bigot tag: on the other hand, you have relentlessly compared homosexuality to NAMBLA... which could be construed as very bigoted indeed. I'll need to chew on this one a bit.

As for your example of the end of the world, it's not. Yes, it sux: yes, I have personal issues with that. It does NOT however, point to the end of society for America or the end of the world. We just don't like it. That's the reason I am so happy that all my friends from childhood who have children are sending their kids to private schools. Parents still have control over much of what happens there, and can move schools if that changes.

QUOTE TED:

>>>>Agreed... and I'd happily take civil unions.<<<<

Well, see? We agree here.

>>>>It's reported so much from states like CA and MA because they've always been more liberal, and are now trying this.<<<<<

The results aren't striking me as real good. I just don't see it as healthy for children.

"Mom and Dad" as terms banished is not a good thing.

Is this what we are "supposed to be" moving towards too?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.9news.com/article.aspx?storyid=92754

Senate Bill 200, quietly signed by Gov. Bill Ritter (D-Colorado) with little fanfare on Thursday, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or identity. It protects those who identify themselves as gay, bisexual or transgender from discrimination in areas including housing, business and education.

The law also prohibits discrimination in "public accommodations."

"It is now legal in the state of Colorado for a grown man to walk into a girl's restroom in an elementary school for whatever purpose, and it is illegal for the school to say you can't do that,"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..... I'm not for that either. If this is what your "rights" are bringing I don't want any part and will cast my vote where and when I can to prevent it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Hmmm... I'm torn. On the one hand, you say civil unions are fine, which would negate the bigot tag: on the other hand, you have relentlessly compared homosexuality to NAMBLA... which could be construed as very bigoted indeed. I'll need to chew on this one a bit<<<<<<<<<<

As I repeated several times regarding NAMBLA. They are like you in the fact they wish to change laws. I NEVER said the two were comparable otherwise. Your group wants to change marriage laws, they want to change Sex Offender laws.

So no- that fact doesn't make me bigoted against your group. Stating that two groups seek to change laws doesn't compare gays to raping children. I suppose I can be considered hateful and bigoted towards NAMBLA though. They should be locked up and put in prison. I do hate child rapists.

AGAIN THOUGH- I never said gays and Nambla were the same.

So again- that doesn't make me bigoted either.

>>>>That's the reason I am so happy that all my friends from childhood who have children are sending their kids to private schools.<<<<

I don't think we should redefine marriage so that parents have to do that. Parents should be able to send their children to public school without all that.

Again, why I am voting YES on #1

Truth behind the "Ellsworth School Teacher" in the most recent "Yes on 1" lies, er, I mean ads...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsTmtGbt4BQ

"prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or identity."

See... and they don't have marriage equality. It's happening without it all over the country.

The two are not related.

"It is now legal in the state of Colorado for a grown man to walk into a girl's restroom in an elementary school for whatever purpose, and it is illegal for the school to say you can't do that,"

The text as provided doesn't say anything about that being true. This is probably true in the same way that the marriage equality bill demanded curriculum indoctrinating kids about homosexuality (btw, the AP headline in the origninal "Yes on1" ad? LIE... The AP has denied every publishing such an article). In other words, it's not true.

"I don't think we should redefine marriage so that parents have to do that."

WE aren't... ALL of society and culture around the Western world are. Some parents, I'm sure, WANT their children to be taught that homosexuals exist and that it's NOT OK to belittle or persecute them, or are at least neutral on the idea. In public schools, these parents have that right too. Why should they not have what THEY want for THEIR children? Parents SHOULD be able to send their kids to public schools for JUST that reason if they wish... If you and I don't like that, we have alternatives.

Well, if we are going to discuss "Truth" here is a healthy dose of where this is all going RIGHT HERE IN MAINE!!!

Polygamist testifies at Maine gay marriage hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkYETe3yzg&feature=related

Again, if these are the results and letting guys possibly have 10 wives down the road, I'm not for this either.

We should not redefine marriage. It doesn't need to be done, and the rest is just too risky for my liking.

Hence YES on #1

QUOTE TED

>>>>>WE aren't... ALL of society and culture around the Western world are.<<<<

How many states is gay marriage legal in?!? And HOW divided are the people of those states? I hear Iowa is like Maine and pretty equally divided.

If only ONE state does, then the definition of the word "marriage" in the English lexicon has changed. Not to mention the countries that now allow it. It may not be a "legal definition" (many words have different meanings as defined by different states for legal purposes) but one would be correct in calling two men wed in a ceremony "married" under the English language.

Iowa doesn't have people's referendums, so hopefully the wolves won't get to tell the sheep what's for lunch there.

QUOTE TED

>>>>>It may not be a "legal definition"<<<<<

Well, the legal definition is the one I care about.

>>>>Iowa doesn't have people's referendums<<<<<

I do love Maine for The People's Veto. :D

"I am reading that Iowa is solid in their divide."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090921/NEWS10/909210321/1001/NEWS

From the article:

"The overwhelming majority of Iowans - 92 percent - say gay marriage has brought no real change to their lives."

So much for the end of the world as we know it...

This is from 2 Days ago:

Poll: Iowans divided on gay marriage ban

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-iowapoll-gaymarri,0,4329074.story

The Iowa Poll by The Des Moines Register shows 41 percent say they would vote for a ban and 40 percent say they would vote to continue same-sex marriage. The rest either would not vote or say they are not sure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's what I read. And Have I said the world is ending or something?!? You keep saying that. Whether gay marriage is kept or overturned in maine the world will obviously go on.

My reasons for voting YES on #1 are not based on the end of the world. They are based on not redefining marriage to prevent what is in my prior posts here.

Maybe the 100 gays in the state will join the unitarian society church, then they will have 300 members.

I can't believe how fixated some people are about gay sex! Do you same people think of a heterosexual having sex when you see them holding hands on the street? A homosexual relationship is about far more than sex just like it is for a heterosexual couple. It is about finding that person that makes every day better, the person who you want to share your life with, your love with.

Some of you really need to stop thinking about gay people having sex, it's not normal!

MaineMom73 Polygamy is outlawed in all fifty states. In nine states, including Maine it is classified as a misdemeanor. The balance of the states classify it as a felony. Maine is the only state in New England which classifies it as a misdemeanor.

I respect your decision to Vote No on 1. But I do not believe that it will prevent what you are concerned about from happening. It was happening long before the issue of same sex marriage came up and it will be happening long after this vote.

Ultimately, I believe that it will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. That is my belief as it will become to difficult for a same sex couple to move from a state (say Vermont) which recognizes it to a state which does not (say Virginia). All of the rights, benefits and privileges which they enjoyed in Vermont disappear in Virginia. This creates a situation which is unequal in the eyes of the law and will decided based on that.

well using that logic my concealed carry firearm permit should be allowed in every state. As soon as I cross into massachusetts its a mandatory one year sentence if caught.

QUOTE MikeinNC:

>>>>I can't believe how fixated some people are about gay sex! Do you same people think of a heterosexual having sex when you see them holding hands on the street? A homosexual relationship is about far more than sex just like it is for a heterosexual couple. It is about finding that person that makes every day better, the person who you want to share your life with, your love with.

Some of you really need to stop thinking about gay people having sex, it's not normal!<<<<<

Why is it that people voting YES on #1 are "supposedly" obsessed and fixated on gay sex? Where is your basis for this?

It's not people obsessed or fixated on gay sex. AT ALL. It's about NOT redefining marriage.

I know that it seems easier to believe that people who vote YES on #1 are these hateful; prejudiced bigoted people but the truth is- I'm not. If I'm not, there's bound to be some others kind of like me. They don't want to deny you happy lives- they just don't want marriage redefined and made genderless.

Anyone who said they were voting YES on #1 gets lines like that.

I don't get it, why am I supposed to be "fixated" on gay sex? Because I don't want Marriage redefined? Well, I don't. I do not agree with the affects that it seems to have in other places after being passed. You equate this to fixation how?!?

Isn't sort of hypocritical to cry that a bunch of people are prejudiced and bigoted against you when you are the VERY thing you claim of them? Your statements demonstrate that very clearly in my humble opinion.

Voting YES on #1 ((See prior posts for in-depth reasons why))

QUOTE JD2008

>>>MaineMom73 Polygamy is outlawed in all fifty states. In nine states, including Maine it is classified as a misdemeanor. The balance of the states classify it as a felony. Maine is the only state in New England which classifies it as a misdemeanor.<<<<

Indeed it is. As was homosexual relations at one time considered "criminal" at one time too. Personally, I find THIS really scary JD.

Polygamist testifies at Maine gay marriage hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZkYETe3yzg&feature=related

Even though they are outlawed now, given the above, their movement is one gaining momentum. It seems like they certainly used same sex marriage as a stepping stone.

I find that disconcerting to say the least. That's why too I think redefining marriage is bad. If that's at all what it leads to- some guy giving a speech to have 10+ wives in support of gay marriage it is too much.

>>>>I respect your decision to Vote No on 1.<<<<<<

I think you have it backwards... YOU are voting No on 1! I AM voting Yes on 1 ;) :P

((I know it was a typo! :D ))

Actually forHIMtoday why is my marriage or your marriage recognized in all fifty states when we must move from state to state for work, etc...We lose none of the rights granted us by the license issued by the state. We can still make end of life decisions for our spouses. We can claim them on our tax returns. We, as heterosexual married couples lose nothing when we move. But homosexual, legally married couples lose everything when they move. The lose every right they previously held by the license issued by the state they were married in. That by any stretch of the imagination is unequal protection in the eyes of the law.

My drivers license, also issued by the state is valid in every single state of the union, Canada and many countries over seas. just because I cross a state line does not invalidate that license. I still have all the rights and privileges which come with my license to operate a motor vehicle.

In contrast, every state has a compelling reason not to recognize a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Each state has various legal hoops to jump through and each state is different and has different requirements to qualify. Massachusetts are some of the most stringent in the country. To bad the do not decrease the crime rate!

Mainemom73, what makes you think that I was addressing you?

But as defensive as you got about it, means only one thing to me, you must think about it a lot.

Even if Civil unions were passed instead of marriage, couples would still refer to themselves as "married", it just rolls off the tongue better than "civil unioned". So I guess I don't really understand why protecting a single word means so much to some.

So this question is directed to Mainemom73, if it were called civil union instead of marriage, would it be less likely to be taught in school? Would having it called a civil union shield the nation's fragile children from knowing about it? Maybe you addressed it in one of the many long responses above, and I could have missed it.

QUOTE MIKE

>>>Mainemom73, what makes you think that I was addressing you?<<<

Oh, that was not just solely directed at you. I got that line in a different BDN comments section. So, when you said it I went on a mild rant I suppose :P

>>>So this question is directed to Mainemom73, if it were called civil union instead of marriage, would it be less likely to be taught in school? Would having it called a civil union shield the nation's fragile children from knowing about it? Maybe you addressed it in one of the many long responses above, and I could have missed it.<<<

Well yeah I probably did! there IS only 200+ comments now :D

Having it be a civil union separate from marriage? That's good with me. I think not redefining marriage to be genderless would make it less likely, yes.

I'd like to see civil unions remain separate from marriage and for same sex couples to have the same rights marriage affords, without it being marriage redefined.

I think "this" is less likely if we do not redefine marriage

'Mom' and 'Dad' banished by California

Schwarzenegger signs law outlawing terms perceived as negative to 'gays'

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58130

I don't want that to happen. I don't think it is good at all. So Yes on #1 for me as I see it as preventive of that.

Mainemom73, you do realize that article is a steaming pile of crap, right? Why don't you read the bill for yourself and you will see that there isn't a list of "banned" words. The article outright lies in this sentence " There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however." The bill clearly states that religion, race and other reasons beside homosexuality are protected from discrimination.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_introduced.html

The spirit of the law is anti-discrimination which in actuality means INCLUSION, and that includes ethnicity, religion etc....

I beg of you please and others who rely on conservative news, to not take it at face value! That really goes to any liberal that gets all of their info from very liberal organizations, go out there and seek the untainted truth!!!!!!!!

Mainemom, all your points are valid.

I don't think the GLBT supporters will ever realize the harm they are doing with this rhetoric.

Just my opinion.

Please vote yes on 1, our families depend on it.

MaineMom73, there are several here who get really upset when those seeking equality compare their struggle of equality to that of segregation, miscegenation, equal rights for women etc - based on the fears and beliefs of those who opposed them. Many believe there are no biological/genetic links to an individual's orientation, as such "you weren't born" with the orientation, it was learned . One of the dens of thought about black men was that they were nothing more that lustful immoral beings. They get very upset - those people didn't chose their gender or race. For months in the comment sections at BDN and for years, gays and lesbians have been compared to pedophiles, as being major perpetrators of the raping of children and of being immoral lustful beings. I'm NOT saying you fall within this category of people in all aspects.

Now you compare gays to NAMBLA (which is a group of, IMO, very very sick criminal individuals) and assert this comparison is based on the fact that they want to change laws, but your not comparing gays/lesbians to pedophiles. Okay, then the comparison of the struggle for rights of interracial marriage and equality of the races is the same too right? Many many is each of these groups of human beings ((based on race and on orientation) have been regarded as 'less than' in society, harassed by other citizens and law enforcement, beaten, murdered because of the "beliefs" who choose to discriminate against them. You asked tedlick how much division is there in states where same-gender marriage is legal. How much division was there and is there still regarding the miscegenation and desegregation etc? How much division still exists regarding the addition of orientation to the Maine Human Rights Act?

Though some choose discount the fact that research of orientation is continuing and that there is evidence of brain differences and ongoing studies into biological differences of orientation, they continue to assert that homosexuality is nothing more than the choosing of immoral/deviant behavior. There are some who hypothesize that an imbalance during pregnancy and if it can be isolated and treated, would prevent homosexuality in those children. (Another ploy at blaming the parents - this on biological - not because they are 'bad' parents as some continue to tout "absent father and over-bearing mother" specifically with gay males). There is much scientific evidence that cell phone use is devastating to a child's brain but it is also discounted by a vast majority of parents that continue to allow their kids to use them. Scientific evidence is ignored as inconvenient all the time.

You say the focus of this repeal is based on 're-defining' the word marriage - that's what it about for you, read other supporters of the repeals comments, you will find hundreds of posts talking about deviant behavior - go back to your first post here: "On one note it is an affront to what is nature by a scientific standpoint. Reproduction does require a male and a female. It is therefore by definition a "deviant" behavior. I do not believe in deviant behavior being taught in schools." - see you also talk about "deviant behavior". Which is it the 're-defining' or "deviant behavior"? And your point that it takes a male and female to reproduce - it takes an egg and sperm to reproduce - based on science and it is possible for infertile people to 'produce' children through this science. Since the beginning of time, people have been able to "reproduce" without the aid of marriage - a marriage certificate does not give on the 'ability' to reproduce - biology does. The assertion of 'gays can't reproduce' is IMO ludicrous, unless people are sterile, they can and do.

Sincerely

Jack B. (1/2 Straight Couple For Marriage Equality)

SinCity, there are children in many families with gay/lesbian parents - but I guess they don't deserve what other families do - after all they did not 'choose' to be born to or adopted by gays/lesbians -their parents were just being selfish and it was only done to "further the agenda", surely not because they were loved or wanted - right? We all know that these kids aren't in "real" families - right? They don't deserve to be recognized legally - only the children of straight people do - right?

Jack B. (1/2 Straight Couple For Marriage Equality)

TO MIKEinNC:

>>>>I beg of you please and others who rely on conservative news, to not take it at face value! That really goes to any liberal that gets all of their info from very liberal organizations, go out there and seek the untainted truth!!!!!!!!<<<<<

Alright, let's go with this...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/258465/california_senate_passes_a_homosexuality_pg2.html?cat=17

According to Meredith Turney, of CRI, "Boys who perceive themselves as girls may enter the girls' locker room and restroom."

Under the bill, school districts who do not comply with the new standards face regulation by the California Department of Education. Another provision of the bill eliminates parental permission for teachers to teach about alternative sexual lifestyles.

..... True or False?

Let me explain my central issue(s). I am of the mind that if we redefine marriage and make it genderless, that this is shown to be as acceptable and a norm within society and simply put- it is not. This is a minority, not majority. The human race is not divided up 50/50 regarding gay and straight. The majority of society is straight.

Children, who are NOT even pubescent should not be given or have ANY access to reading materials that is not heterosexual. Before anyone goes crying "Bigot" the reason is because the child has no inkling of sexuality. Humans biologically reproduce via male and female. Influencing any thing other than that is a disservice to a child. They need to understand the natural basics to understand anything "alternate". Introducing them to various "lifestyles" from toddler age is just wrong.

You can't claim it's not hurting because your not the product all grown up. That end result is yet to be seen.

Let's Look at some of these goals. Marriage redefined can only open the door MORE and MORE. Marriage not redefined leave states like Arizona keeping it abnormal. If it is treated like abnormal, I would say that the chances are LESS of these "types" of things making appearances:

TOLERANT TODDLERS BECOME TOLERANT TEENS

and is dedicated to providing GAY-FRIENDLY CHILDREN'S BOOKS, a long overdue resource for parents and teachers, both gay and straight

Straight Parents... These books are for your children too!

Do you think your child doesn’t need gay-friendly books because YOU are straight? Think again, your toddler may turn out to be gay. There is an alarmingly high rate of suicide among gay and lesbian teens. If your child turns out to be gay, you want your child to be able to talk with you about it.

http://www.appreciatediversity.com/index.html

The Philosophy

http://www.appreciatediversity.com/philos.html

"What we do and say and feel affects other people. Children who learn to appreciate diversity when they are toddlers are more likely to become tolerant teenagers. They will be kinder to their gay peers, and will be less likely to feel shame if they themselves turn out to be gay. At least a few of the wonderful children who came to my day care center will probably one day realize that they are gay."

.....I don't agree with that philosophy at ALL. It seems reasonable that furthering the agenda of redefining marriage, ALSO furthers that place and their mission/philosophy.

Now, THIS elementary school in CA states in their documents that they use the Rainbow Books Reading List.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:b_yGuj3RFBAJ:www.jbes.srvusd.k12.ca.us/Baldwin%2520Safety%2520Plan.pdf+elementary+school+The+Rainbow+Project+books+schools+parents&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNHVDqB7CB3WNhph4z6F8sG28bFlGg

That Rainbow Reading List is here:

http://rainbowlist.wordpress.com/rl-2009/

EXAMPLES:

PICTURE BOOKS

Brannen, Sarah. Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. 2008. 32p. Putnam, $15.99. (978-0-399-24712-5). PreS-Gr. 2. Chloe’s concerns about her uncle’s upcoming wedding have nothing to do with the fact that his partner is male; instead, like a typical preschooler, she worries that she will lose her favorite uncle’s attention.

? Ewert, Marcus. 10,000 Dresses. Illustrated by Rex Ray. 2008. 32p. Seven Stories Press, $14.95. (978-1583228500). PreS-Gr. 2. Bailey dreams of wearing beautiful dresses, but her family disapproves of her understanding of her true self.

MIDDLE / EARLY YOUNG ADULT

Fiction

Bauer, A.C.E. No Castles Here. October 2007. 270p. Random House, $15.99 (Trade); $18.99 (Lib. Binding) (978-0-375-83921-4; 978-0-375-93921-1). Gr. 5-7. A book of fairy tales, participation in a school chorus, and a gay Big Brother combine to give 11-year-old Augie the confidence he needs to become an activist.

Woodson, Jacqueline. After Tupac & D Foster. 2008. 153p. Putnam, $15.99. (978-0-399- 24654-8). Gr. 5-8. Eleven-year-old D Foster completes a trio of friends who share a passion for the music of Tupac Shakur as they deal with discrimination directed toward the gay brother of one of the trio.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm sorry but I don't want to take any chance of stuff like that going to young kids. I think we take that chance by redefining marriage itself. Young kids should not have that CRAP put on them. Sorry, but NO toddler "knows" whether or not they are "gay".

Research seems to show that while genes may play a factor in homosexuality, it is not the only factor and there are multiple contributing factors. There is NO Need to redefine marriage when civil unions and such can be made to accomplish the same. Unless of course, redefining marriage opens the door for things like the above. Which i don't want and actively seek to prevent.

If that's the kind of acceptance your looking for I can't give that. Kids need to be left alone and not taught that it's all equal. It isn't. Heterosexuality is the majority and biological standard of the human race, not homosexuality. While every person is equal, without discrimination- the population numbers just aren't. The majority is heterosexual and exists. In other words- I don't see this in the long run as good for children.

Yes on #1 for me.

And free2bee what you conveniently left out is what the bible has to say about it and its cause. God has given you over to degrading passions, He has allowed your mind to be darkened. He clearly stated that. So what would be the natural inclination for a person who's mind has been darkened to do? Why, rewrite the bible of course. Change it, make it appear that its full of inaccuracies. Make Jesus out to be someone that is all about "love" and has no regard to whats immoral. Don't you just hate those stories of people that have been delivered out of this perversion through the power of Jesus Christ in their lives. You do your best to try and discredit them to. You comparing a perversion to the plight of the blacks in our country is an insult to them. Who can blame them? Its no wonder black people overwhelmingly oppose this. You keep signing off with the ridiculous 1/2 straight couple for marriage equality. Two halves of a straight couple is what makes a marriage, not two men or two women.

VOTE YES ON ONE

This is VERY disturbing and what I DO NOT want to Happen

Gay Curriculum Proposal Riles Elementary School Parents- Friday, May 22, 2009

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html

A group of parents in a California school district say they are being bullied by school administrators into accepting a new curriculum that addresses bullying, respect and acceptance -- and that includes compulsory lessons about the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that will be taught to children as young as 5 years old.

But the school board says otherwise, and its attorneys say that if the curriculum is adopted, the parents will have no legal right to remove their children from class when the lessons are being taught.

Among the course materials that could be added to the curriculum is "And Tango Makes Three," a children’s book about gay penguins struggling to create a family. The book has been banned in some areas of the country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's things like the above that have me Voting YES on #1

oMG stupidity runs rampant here. They keep repeating the lies over and over again as if it will make them true. Stop the lying or at least keep the lies to yourself. Think what you like just stop the lying.

Like happy bunny says "make the stupid people stop lying!" LOL

I share your concerns MaineMom73.

JKERSHAW:

Are you saying that it didn't happen? How is something that happened a lie?

Sorry- your rights don't get to trample all over everyone else's. Marriage affects everyone. I don't want maine to be like CA if that's the results pouring in.

THE LIE is saying that this is just about giving same sex couples rights. The LIE is telling people it doesn't affect education at all. What a crock. If it didn't these things would not be happening. Simple as that.

YES on #1.

Just because the majority is "straight" is not a good reason to deny a minority its rights. A majority does not always automatically overrule a minority.

free2bee: I would leave the Black's situation out of it for the most part though. It seems because Black people supposedly are against gay marriage (and I am sure a lot are) all of a sudden they are held up here glowingly...otherwise, I doubt their opinions would be so important to some here.

Sincity: Yes, some other families count on it to be voted NO for their families' sakes.

Actually, the lie is that California is anything like Maine. You seem unaware that same-sex marriage isn't legal there either (yet) as a direct result of certain churches imposing their will on others in that state. I have to wonder what your real issue is.

So it seems, MaineMom, you don't have any idea WHAT you are rattling on about.

I think that you and others like you just hate gays.

The lie is that you heterosexual marriages will in any way be impacted by letting churches marry, and the state recognize, same-sex unions.

The lie is that this is not a civil-rights issue.

The lie is that repealing the right of same-sex couple to be married, YOU, and people like YOU are not harming families, and children.

The lie is that pretending that someone doesn't exist makes them cease to exist; and that you are keeping the fact that children your kids go to school with now who have two mommies or two daddies. Do you think you are hiding this from your kids now ?

The lie is that your church isn't bullying other churches, and imposing it's will upon them.

You need to take a cold hard look at yourself, you are using this to cover up your own issues; your own prejudices, your own hate and fear.

Please, for the freedom of church's that freely choose to marry the people they respect who are committed to one-another, and for their families and their children, VOTE "NO" on 1 .

Your church doesn't have the right to stop my church from honoring and respecting people in dedicated relationships. Your church doesn't have the right to harm our families. Live and let live.

cher, I wanted to apologize for yesterday. As I was doing

some reading last night I realized that I wasn't acting very

christian like and want you to know I'm sorry.

QUOTE On 9/24/09 at 11:13 AM, AionCA wrote:

>>>>Actually, the lie is that California is anything like Maine. You seem unaware that same-sex marriage isn't legal there either (yet) as a direct result of certain churches imposing their will on others in that state. I have to wonder what your real issue is.<<<<<<

I never said CA was like Maine. What I said was is if that happens there it can happen here more easily if marriage is redefined.

>>>So it seems, MaineMom, you don't have any idea WHAT you are rattling on about.<<<

Or- You're not reading what I am writing. Try going back and re-reading.

>>>>I think that you and others like you just hate gays.<<<<<

Yes, that's much easier for you to convince yourself of.

>>>>The lie is that you heterosexual marriages will in any way be impacted by letting churches marry, and the state recognize, same-sex unions.<<<<

Same sex unions are FINE. Redefining marriage is NOT. There is a difference.

>>>>The lie is that this is not a civil-rights issue.<<<<

I'll consider that when the national guard is called because people are beating gays and the police won't do anything. When that happens we can maybe compare the two.

>>>The lie is that repealing the right of same-sex couple to be married, YOU, and people like YOU are not harming families, and children.<<<

Civil Union is fine. Redefining marriage is not. Sorry. Not for the following minority of GLBT 1.51 % in our country. Even if it was as high as 15% I would not feel we should redefine marriage.

>>>The lie is that pretending that someone doesn't exist makes them cease to exist; and that you are keeping the fact that children your kids go to school with now who have two mommies or two daddies. Do you think you are hiding this from your kids now ?<<<<

There are less gays than black in this country. I think kids can wait till high school and until they at least hit PUBERTY before being introduced to any alternative lifestyles.

>>>>The lie is that your church isn't bullying other churches, and imposing it's will upon them.<<<<

I've never ONCE mentioned religion. In any post of mine yet.

>>>You need to take a cold hard look at yourself, you are using this to cover up your own issues; your own prejudices, your own hate and fear.<<<<

I know I'm not hateful prejudiced and bigoted. You say that because you want that to be my reason for voting YES on #1 to validate your claims and justify them. My reasons for voting YES on 1 have noting to do with being hateful prejudice etc. Seems like a common tactic to throw that around though.

>>>>Your church doesn't have the right to stop my church from honoring and respecting people in dedicated relationships. Your church doesn't have the right to harm our families. Live and let live.<<<<<

Look- I don't go to church. I've presented no religious arguements what do you want me to say about that?

Catholics, will never marry you. The Unitarian church will. There ya go. Any other faiths, I have no clue. And who can fault any religion really? I mean the Amish for their faith don't use electric and phones cars etc. Just kind of their thing. Same goes for catholics not marrying gays, and unitarians will. All have their thing.

My YES on #1 is NOT based in HATE PREJUDICE or BIGOTRY. If you want to assume all those things go ahead. Anyone who actually reads through these comments will know that is not true.

AionCA, your name suggests you are from CA? Are you voting in this upcoming election, or just telling mainers how you deem they should vote because YOU think they should. Anyone who doesn't vote YOUR way is some hateful horrible person right?

That song and dance is getting old for me already.

HRH: Okay. I will honestly tell you I don't even remember all that happened last night. Too much of it....back and forth.....a lot of different posters....some new ones......it got to be too much and I wasn't even on there for about 3 or more hrs yesterday afternoon when some of that was written. Some of it appeared to be removed. It got way too "personal" from people we do not know. Sometimes that can be almost uncomfortable and does not feel right.

Anyway....thanks for what you wrote here. We get to feel almost like we "know" some people here when we post frequently, but unless there are really some posters here that know each other, I doubt many do. Our phone # is the same for yrs but it is not under my name so when people here insinuate (yesterday) that they know the person (in that case, me), that is a lie and one wonders what the motives are....especially when it is a man saying it to a woman on here. One can kind of guess.

Mr EJParsons and I certainly do not agree on much as far as politics,etc. and from what he has said he is no "spring chicken." Yet, none of those posters insult him or get "personal." Is it because he is a man? Because he is a conservative? A "liberal" woman should not be targeted in that manner either....or any woman here. By the way, I am so glad no one does that to Mr Parsons. (I am not saying people haven't made negative remarks to him.....I am talking about the other stuff.)

Also, you and I have grandchildren (congrats!) I have just one, age 6, by my youngest adult child. However, I know a woman who is just 41 and will be a grandmolther in Nov for the 2nd time. Many "youngish" people have grandchildren. Age is a number....and those posters who go on and on about "hags",etc. sound like about 80 yrs old to me sometimes. Guess it is all relative....

Did not mean to be so long-winded.

I have to run for now. Have a nice day. It is really nice outside....we are getting spoiled!

Thanks for reading and responding. Hope you enjoy the day!

Tell me please, if you think that the children of gays/lesbians deserve to remain invisible in Maine's PUBLIC Schools say so. If you want these children to be invisible then why not make all the children in the state of Maine who do not live in a 'traditional' family invisible also. This would include children who live with one parent (unmarried, divorced, widowed, widower-ed), children who live in foster care (foster parents aren't Mommy and Daddy), children being raised by relatives (none of these individuals or couples are Mommy and Daddy either), unmarried couples (they aren't married even if they are Mommy and Daddy), children whose Moms and Dads are not living (sometimes referred to as orphans - they don't have a Mommy or a Daddy) - lets just stop teaching about families all together because there are too many kids that fit into these categories.

chersully - if MaineMom73 can compare NAMBLA and gays/lesbians in regards to "attempting to change the laws", but we've heard over and over from other posters that "homosexuals are pedophiles" and they love to point out news reports that "prove" it. then they call "foul" when they are directed to news reports about heterosexual instances. Not all gays/lesbians rape children - just as not all heterosexual men so not. But that assertion is made over and over.

Why is it that we don't see posts here about black individuals, clergy, groups etc that do support equal marriage:

Mildred Loving (2007: “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”

Coretta Scott King (2004: "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.").

There are others whose quotes can be found: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:lnVUKrLINT0J:nbjc.org/assets/docs/BLACK-LEADERS-SPEAK-OUT.doc+%22Same-sex+Marriage+%22%2B+%22black+leaders%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

Jack B.

from the bible

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted;

wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.

These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their {own} lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of {gaining an} advantage.

that they were saying to you, "In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts."

These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.

But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,

keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

have mercy on some, who are doubting;

save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy,

to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, {be} glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

free2bee, should the children of drunks remain invisible, drug addicts, prostitutes, thieves, molesters, revilers, gossips, liers, etc... of course not! Should we be teaching kids that any of those are acceptable behaviors? NO! And homosexuality should also not be taught as acceptable lifestyle for that too is a sin and immoral

VOTE YES ON ONE

10:36 YES IT DID NOT HAPPEN that's what I'm saying because IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE.

chersully at 11:09 am wrote "I would leave the Black's situation out of it for the most part though. It seems because Black people supposedly are against gay marriage"

I think it's not that Black people are against gay marriage, it's that there a lot of shall we say "macho" white men who have married non-white women and are furious that their inter-racial marriages are being compared to the unequal treatment of gays and blacks.

Does anyone know why that guy keeps copying and pasting from the Bible? Do you all just tolerate it because he's kookoo or something? Just curious.

>>>>Tell me please, if you think that the children of gays/lesbians deserve to remain invisible in Maine's PUBLIC Schools say so. <<<<

Of course not. But they are the "exception" and we should not redefine marriage for 1.5% of the entire US population of gays. The parents can live under a civil union without marriage redefined.

jkershaw: I get your point. I was just pointing out some seeming hypocrisy with that statement.

The "exception"...etc.. Once again, your side may very well repeal gay marriage but it is not some kind of right for the majority to overrule the rights of a minority.

QUOTE CHERSULLY:

The voice of the people should mean something. That's why we have the People's Veto in Maine. Marriage affects "everybody"

Mainemom73, the constitution forbids the voting on civil rights for a minority by the majority, it is simply unconstitutional.

I would also hope that you would do a bit of research on gay history. Start with Stonewall. Recently in the south in GA and TX gay bars were raided and patrons harassed and threatened.

Gays are harassed and beaten every day in this country. I don't attempt to compare this to the black struggle, but I can guarantee you gays are a target for many.

The People's Veto does not go against the constitution. We live in America, it's a democracy. Yes on #1