Susan Davis....the challenge should be that if these politicians think a public option is so great for you and the rest of us, then let THEM and every govt employee be the first to put themselves and their families on it. Susan, do you now have insurance?

Larissa Bilodeau - "One thing I have learned in life is that I cannot have all the things I want. It seems to me there are many in this time and age that must learn this lesson". Unfortunately, we're a spoiled and selfish nation. Far too many people in the US have forgotten how to compromise, cooperate or sacrifice. We need to bring back the draft and add women to the list. Military service teached humility and teamwork. Then we need to put God back into the school system so our children learn morals and values that they can use throughout their lives. Of course, the public outcry against letting God back in the public school system will border on violence, so we might have to come up with a morally based teaching system that inspires and unites rather than oppresses and separates. We also need to clean OUT Washington, DC, and start over with true American Partiots, not rich lawyers and life-long politicians. Fair elections, term limits, and minimal staffs, both at the federal and state levels, would do great things for our government.

But, you're right. Far too many in this country refuse to learn the basics of life. And far too many have sucked off the taxpayers for far too long.

Well they closed down the comment section of todays gay marriage article. The NO side won the debate of course. EJ, you would have an absolute fit and fall into it if you were not allowed to marry the person you love and with whom you want to be. You cannot deny that.

Now let us all be rational ; the instructions are 'Post comment', not stab your debatee.

7:43 pm, yes the NO side won. NO on 1!

continuing from the other thread...

Bemused, I’m glad you are entertained by something that obviously has no impact on you. As a disinterested bystander, surely you can see that the NO campaign is clearly more rational than the YES campaign.

Get a free "No on 1" sticker! Mainers finally won marriage equality for all couples, and now the right wing is trying to take it away. On November 3rd of this year, the right to marry for all people will be on the ballot in Maine. We need to get the message out to protect marriage equality and vote NO on 1. Get one sticker for free, or for $5 we'll send you 5 stickers; for $25 we'll send 50 stickers. Stickers are 4.5" x 6" (about the size of a postcard) and may take 2-5 weeks to arrive.

https://act.credoaction.com/sticker/mainestickers/?rc=mailto

Thank you, anne, I sent that out to a few hundred people. I hope others will also.

7:56 pm, me too!

Larissa Bilodeau, I see your point. I could agree with you if civil unions were available equally for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. There really are heterosexuals who do not want their “union” to be of religious status. The issue with that will be, people who are “married” will want excusive priveleges that are denied those in civil unions. If the state, as it should, sees both marriage and unions equally, then that would be great. That is unlikely and the opponents of gay marriage would also oppose equality in the civil unions. I offer as evidence of this the posts that will follow here.

WilliamDS,

I skimmed the first 150 but missed the later comments on that topic. I'm suprised that it got to 277. I really cringe when the "AIDS is God's punishment" posts come out however with mdi moonbat on your side you can't make the argument that the "No" side is more "rational".

We all have our cross(es) to bear.

Is chersully still hovering over you, keeping you safe?

Let's ROCK and ROLL, folks!

Oh yeah, my side is more rational, because my side doesn't have to pretend to be 100 times bigger than it is!

woo hoo, woo hoo, pleased to meet you, hope you guessed my name ... !

It wasn't the AIDS posts, cap. It was the guy using vulgar sexual slang to describe gay people. You know the ones that define people by what some imagine gay sexual activity is like. Really colorful language from a bunch of losers.

Time for your meds, Jabba. Whatever name CaptainAndy goes by, he's the Luke Skywalker in your liberal nightmare. Cue for burst of laughter from your familiar...

Mike Avery Sr, very good information. Bravo and thank you. I'm familiar with JCAHO standards and their patient safety goals are great.

WilliamDS

My ideology leans toward a resolution by common sense, not hype or misdirection. If civil unions provide the same legal conducts and entanglements that a government recognized or religious ceremony do, I do not see the benefit of promoting a "landmark" decision that by unfortunate circumstance may shout a mood vindictive or vengeful, when love and celebration are intended.

Many people are not ready to accept that two people who love each other enough to marry are of the same gender.

This law will eventually pass by citizen initiative; the legislature cannot mandate acceptance of an issue so combustible.

God knows I will get villified,... but you asked, and I don't see a clear "winner".

No on 1

WilliamDS: I received that offer today by email from credoaction and forwarded it to others.I am sure others will do the same. One poster in particular on the one shut down, is way too interested in all the details of what people do in privacy.....it is a dead giveway.....not all based on morality (the opposition) but then we knew that.

anne: LOL re 8:09 PM and 8:10 What a riot!

bemused: Good point at 7:46...but maybe you did not have the "pleasure" of reading the comments of bottled_goodness on that thread. Maybe that would provide you more insight.

8:20 pm, sorry but Luke Skywalker isn't in my nightmares. LOL!

"...what some imagine gay sexual activity is like."

No offense but I don't ever imagine about that!

Vulgar isn't ok unless it's funny, too. I "imagine" things decayed past that point...

(cue bluepeter)

8:46 pm, what the ?

Okay, the right wing/religious fundies have finally convinced me. Marriage is only between a man and a woman and it is purely a religious rite. As it is a religious rite then that would make it fall under the seperation of church and state. Hence, it would behoove the Federal and State government to remove all the statutes, laws, regulations, etc regarding a married couple. As ALL people are treated the same under the US Constitution, and Religion is a seperate institution answerable only to itself, then let the sects handle all the "benifits" that a Man/Woman Marriage currently enjoy under the Federal/State laws. This would also alleviate all the court costs and time for any insuing seperation. I'm also sure the church would love this as it would add to their coffers. Perhaps it would bring in a little money to help defray their court expenses for all the law suits they are having to deal with for all those rightous individuals who have ended up in court due to sexual abuse, abuse of power, scams, etc. Also, it would allow the church to decide who can marry. Your caucasian daughter wants to marry that nice Korean boy down the street? Nope, can't do. It's against the "bible". Became a widow because of an accident, well then, you have to marry your deceased husband's brother cause it's in the bible.

______

I posted this on another article, but I'm not imaginative enough to come up with something new. But then, many of the usual readers are probably used to that tactic.

8:46 PM, captainandy, this was offensive and you would have found it offensive also. I enjoy a slight off color joke sometimes, we all do. It was name-calling at its crudest.

9:06 PM, oldgrump, excellent cynicism and amusing.

Whoa folks, there is an editorial by Steven Barkan, chair of the sociology department at the University of Maine, Stephen Marks, professor of sociology, and Robert Milardo, professor of family relations at UMaine. Finally some credentialed commentary with numbers and all!

WilliamDS: Yes, they are usually right on the mark. re 9:53 PM

Months ago (?), you commented with the observation that heterosexuals are the self professed experts when it comes to gay sex or something to that effect. I'm still smirking at the simple truth of that remark. Since you floated it, I really see your point.

Just the same, I'm glad I didn't see it. That dirty talk tempts my repressed bisexual side. (Who was it that made that idiotic comment to me? I am sure it was somebody from your team.)

Oh well, you have to work with what ya got.

Damn, chersully!

"Yes, WilliamDS", "you're right WilliamDS", "Exactly, WilliamDS"...........At least offer him a towel so he can dry off now and again!

I don't understand all those people out there that are so against gay marriage but support equivalent civil unions that have all the same rights and responsibilities. I do agree that it is the equal rights that are most important. But come on, wake up people. If you create something that is identical to marriage in every way, then guess what? Its called marriage. If you want to continue to exclude people from your "club" by forcing them to call their marriage something different, then head back to middle school!

10:25 cap, is that where that bisexual stuff came from? ...and I thought you were disclosing. Yes if you're quoting me... "There seems to be an awfully lot of heterosexual experts on homosexuality." and "There seems to be an awfully lot of concerned Christians when gay marriage in mentioned."

Shannon9A, don't worry, they wouldn't support equivalent civil unions for gay people either. They want them gone.

William - I would not be denied the right to marry the person of my choosing, because that person would be of the opposite sex. Also, you claim that there are a lot of heterosexual experts on homosexuality. The opposite seems to be true, also. In addition, at least in these threads, there are a lot of non-Christians that are experts on the Bible and Christianity. Strange, now isn't it? As far as equal civil unions, you already know where I stand on that issue. You, me and tedlick all agree.

I see you guys got the "Gay marriage foes do battle on airwaves" article comment section shut down yesterday.

Please try to do better today.

The Same Sex Marriage Law does not force religious institutions marry anyone they do not want to. One's church, mosque or synagogue is exempted in this law from preforming same sex marriages. This law provides for separation of church and state while providing most everyone with equal access to the laws that govern this great state. It also provides the availability of people to form legal partnerships (called marriage) that provide stability and strength within families and communities. 

Good morning folks - Lyn told me what was written that she reported on that thread and according to her it was stated by a male regarding an act with a female. Maybe there was more after she left as the whole tread was closed down.

I repeat again, Mr. Michael Heath has proposed an initiative for 2010 - Issued: May 21, 2008; 18-month deadline: November 21, 2009

An Act to Remove Protections Based on Sexual Orientation from the Maine Human Rights Act, Eliminate Funding of Civil Rights Teams in Public Schools, Prohibit Adoptions by Unmarried Couples, Add a Definition of Marriage, and Declare Civil Unions Unlawful

Do you guys think he will not pursue this one even if the current law is repealed? What is he trying to accomplish by this? IMO it is pretty obvious. He had to change the original title, which did not tell the far-reaching intention.

EJParsons - If, say in 1965, you had fallen in love with and wanted to marry a black woman, you would not have been allowed to. It was law. It was a Civil Law with much support of some religious individuals including clergy. They used scripture to prove they were 'right'. Not all Christian clergy agreed. They interpreted the same scripture differently. (ex. Deuteronomy7;3-4) I'm sure you agree this was not correct, but I'm sure some still do. Some will come out and say interracial marriage is 'wrong' and some will cloak it in terms of how difficult it could be. As of March of this year, Alabama still had that law on its books.

If you wish, there is an article written 2004 that speaks of miscegenation arguments which are very similar to those who oppose extending marriage to same-gender couples.

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

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

free2bee, no where in the bible does it prohibit interracial marriage. The verses you cite in Deuteronomy 7 couldn't be clearer. Verse 3 gives the command by God and verse 4 tells you why. I don't understand the confusion on your part. Its all about marrying outside of your faith. This is also mentioned in the new testament for exactly the same reasons. There have always been people that take scripture out of context to make it fit their life. This is nothing new. Its alive and well today. God clearly prohibits homosexual behavior in both the old and new testament. This liberal rewriting of the bible just another assault on scripture with a bent on making it appear that God somehow approves of this sexual perversion when He clearly doesn't.

Homosexuality is just another lustful perversion no different than any other, other than its between two consenting adults. Marriage does not need to be redefined or rewritten to satisfy the immorality of a few.

Marriage is NOT a matter concerning any unsubstantiated deity. My marriage is a heterosexual, civil matter. If it's sacred, it is only sacred to me and my spouse. Frankly, marriage is a LOT of work: compromise in disagreements, caregiving in illness, the mundane chores that must be accomplished for two people, of sometimes opposing views, to manage daily life. Marriage is not an elitist club; it's a formal dedication of an established commitment to another person. We cannot legislate love. Adults should be allowed to marry other adults without restrictions!

4Him 7:59 Agreed.

I'm not wanting to be mean. i just think it should be ok to laugh at ourselves a little if its funny. Capt'n @ 10:00 tooooo funny!!!

"Marriage does not need to be redefined or rewritten to satisfy the immorality of a few."

But it IS being redefined already, all around you. As for immoral, well, you are welcome to that opinion, for it's nothing more than that.

The definition will continue to change across the landscape of language whether you lie it or not. Besides, even in Maine, clergy must be licensed by the state before they can perform marriages. To say that is a religious only concept is patently wrong. This is one of the things that cracks me up about many Yes supporters... they somehow think that stopping equal treatment of all citizens in this case will somehow stop the changing definition of marriage, and will make all the icky problems they like to spew go away: even though it's all happening WITHOUT marriage equality. It makes no sense: it is just going to continue.

And free2be is correct, 4Him... do a little research and you'll find that it was indeed the church, right or wrong, that was most vocal about keeping miscegenation illegal. It's not hard to find.

"One thing I have learned in life is that I cannot have all the things I want. It seems to me there are many in this time and age that must learn this lesson".

I thought the above quote was a good answer to the Pro State Welfare articel written by Juliana L’Heureux

free2bee - 6:53 AM - In 1965 I wasn't old enough to get married, and, being from Northern Maine, I had never met a black woman or man. Either way, it was wrong the way blacks were treated back then, but that is in the past. We have a black man in the White House, so we've come a long way. As for Alabama haveing a law against interacial marriage, if they do, they don't enforce it. I know because Southern Alabama is in my territory and I help out many interacial couples.

But, the issue with blacks and women don't hold water in the homosexual debate. You see, when a person is born, he or she has race pre-determined. In many cases, his or her disabilities are also determined at birth. He or she also had their natural sexual orientation determined. In order for them to become a homosexual, they themselves have to make the conscience decision to cross the line of nature. Because this is a personal decision, they cannot make themselves a minority because minority status cannot be chosen. It's just like me being a Christian. I chose to follow Christ, but I'm a white male by birth and a Christian by choice.

Of course, many disagree with this, but that's their right. There is no conclusive evidence of a gay gene, and, in fact, the homosexual community has given up looking for any evidence because it's just not out there. Yes, there are many websites that claim the gay gene exists, but there are just as many that prove that it doesn't.

Also, homosexuality is a sin according to the Bible. But, let's not bring religion into this argument. What about nature? What about morals? What about the fact that men aren't equipt to satisfy men, and women aren't equipt to satisfy women, without drastic chages in the engagement rules. Also, neither of these couples can produce offspring, so without outside intervention, they only go one generation. In other words, there are just too many oddities in homosexuality for it to be normal or natural.

Gotta' get to work. Later, everyone.

"He or she also had their natural sexual orientation determined. In order for them to become a homosexual, they themselves have to make the conscience decision to cross the line of nature." - Simply not true. For homosexuals there is no opposite sex attraction... we didn't decide to change things. No choice was ever made.

"What about nature?" - happens in nature all the time.

"What about morals?" - many don't find it immoral: morality is relative, and different for everyone.

"What about the fact that men aren't equipt to satisfy men, and women aren't equipt to satisfy women, without drastic chages in the engagement rules." - simply not true. Men can be satisfied without any form of penile stimulation, but one must get to the prostate to accomplish that. For that, another man is perfectly suited. Simple fact. Women easily satisfy one another in the same way that men the world over satisfy their partner. This is the silliest of all these types of arguments.

"In other words, there are just too many oddities in homosexuality for it to be normal or natural." - in humans and many other species, it is both normal and natural: the evidence is all around you.

posted on the other hot site> Exceptance of the Homo life style is the bottom line issue!! Yes I can honestly say that I love a few of my closet male friends. But raising kids in whatever abnormal lifestyle well all I can say to that is the Apple doesn`t fall far from the tree nor does it in any form of abnoral behavior we talk about. So that is not the issue either. I don`t think I have read one post on the Homo side that exceptance is what you really want and if that is what you really want then you have to deal with the time honered traditions of Social Change. I personally feel that for now and in the immediate future that you need to let this one go until there is more scientific info on the cause and effects. Is it Nuture or Nature when the children of Homo couples turn out to be gay and at what %.

WilliamDS,

Yes. A couple weeks ago, someone diagnosed me as repressing my bisexual nature.

Sorry, I didn't mean to turn you on. :)

tedlick is so confused. A cow mounting another cow is not a display of homosexual perversion, you should know better!

That's not what I said. For you to say that's what I said, is a lie.

Isn't that a sin?

David R. Patterson: How about not parking where you are not supposed to and you won't have to drive all the way to Waterville to make a point to no one ther than yourself?

12:43 AM, EJParsons, sorry to be just getting to this thread. People aren't claiming to be Biblical experts, they are disregarding Biblical ideology as irrational. They don't really care what the Bible says as they have other intellectual pursuits.

9:27 AM, EJParsons, how many time does a gay person have to say he was born gay for you to believe it? Personal accounts are not factual? Do you disregard them because you think they are flawed? I never met a gay person who said they chose to be homosexual. When did you choose to be heterosexual, and don't say "when you got married." That's just BS.

Re 8:42 AM "Too funny at 10:00 . Gee, I don't see any remark at 10:00.

I was looking for it too, cher.

"When did you choose to be heterosexual, and don't say "when you got married." That's just BS. "

There are many choices people make in their day and they make them every day.

I choose not to be a pedophile by not having sex with children.

I choose not to be a necrophiliac by not having sex with dead people

I choose not to be a (whatever someone is who has sex with animals) by not boning my dog

I also choose not to be a homosexual by not having sex with men

You must choose whether the above choices are genetic and the people who take part in those perversions have to either have sex in the way they choose, or repress who they really are: or the above examples are sexual perversions all committed by otherwise normal heteros.

If they are all genetic we had better start doing some thinking about how we are making those other perverts feel ashamed for what they are doing and maybe put some legal protections in place for them as well so they can not be discriminated against for their genetic dispositions.

After all its not their fault, who would choose to be one of the above.

forHIM - re 7:59, you say the verse couldn't be clearer but there were many who used it. Do you believe there are people today who don't think that way? Do you think that maybe they didn't understand it had not to do with race but 'tribe/religion"? Did you read the article on the link I mentioned?

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html

Jack B.

1:02 PM, newportres, you choose not to do those things because you don't want to do those things, all of them are crimes except same gender sex. That is between 2 consenting adults of equal consent. The others are illegal because they victimize or degrade someone or something.

What school did you Psych doctorate come from again...?

1:00 PM, WilliamDS, 12:47 PM, chersully2000........... I must have got the time wrong, my bad... sorry.

On 9/22/09 at 1:02 PM, newportres wrote:

"When did you choose to be heterosexual, and don't say "when you got married." That's just BS. "

There are many choices people make in their day and they make them every day.

I choose not to be a pedophile by not having sex with children.

I choose not to be a necrophiliac by not having sex with dead people

I choose not to be a (whatever someone is who has sex with animals) by not boning my dog

I also choose not to be a homosexual by not having sex with men

******

These are choices for you? You want to participate in these actions and choose not to? You desire to do one or all the above and make a concious choice not to? Personally, I don't have any desire to have sex with children, corpses, etc. It's not a choice for me as the desire isn't even remotely there. If and when I choose to participat in a sexual act with someone, I choose which consensual adult memeber of the human species that has mutual feelings.

"The others are illegal because they victimize or degrade someone or something. "

The law has nothing to do with the subject of choices. Who you have sex with is either a matter of choice or not.

Are you requiuring a PHD for everyone to participate in this discussion or only those who hold opposing views?

"These are choices for you? You want to participate in these actions and choose not to? You desire to do one or all the above and make a concious choice not to? Personally, I don't have any desire to have sex with children, corpses, etc. It's not a choice for me as the desire isn't even remotely there. If and when I choose to participat in a sexual act with someone, I choose which consensual adult memeber of the human species that has mutual feelings. "

None of your above has any bearing on the question of whether sexual acts are choices or out of our control.

Sex acts don't make homosexuals.

It's much more than that. If you've been here for any amount of time you know that.

Go do the research. The act is not what makes a homosexual a homosexual.

You either are, or you aren't. Whether or not you act on it has no bearing.

On 9/22/09 at 2:29 PM, newportres wrote:

None of your above has any bearing on the question of whether sexual acts are choices or out of our control.

******

Neither did your assertation in your original post. However, whether homosexuality is a choice or not, it is not illegal. And if it is a choice, so is you desire to follow a particular belief. Should one's beleif be the basis for discrimation in employment, housing, credit, marriage? The State and Federal Constitution say no. I agree with Constitutions. I may think your beleifs (either religious or secular) to be wrong, but would not consider that to be the basis to deny you the same civil rights that is enjoyed by the majority of our population.

Larissa Bilodeau- "That state is a holy sacrament of the church ... The statement is completely untrue. By your logic, marriages done by a notary public or in a country club lodge would not be legitimate.

"Marriage" is a civil practice created by law. Even in the Roman Catholic church, the priest pronounces two people married with the words, "By the power vested in me by the State of Maine ..."

What gives marriages legitimacy is not the church, but the law. Since that's true, then same-sex couples could and should be permitted access to the same legally-enforceable contract as you and I.

William - 12:47 PM - As long as there are thousands of homosexuals leaving the lifestyle every year, I'll not be convinced. As long as there is no conclusive scientific evidence of a gay gene, I'll not be convinced. And as along as the Bible says that it is a choice that can be repented of, I'll not be convinced. As for choosing to be heterosexual, God made that choice when He created me.

God created us all and gave us ONE power, and that is the power to choose. Once we reach the age of independence, about 18 months old, we make choices all day, every day, for our entire life. The further we get from God, the less we consider the consequences of our choices. The more the world tells us things are all right, the less we consider the consequences of our choices. That's why so many choose to smoke, drink, commit adultery, try homosexuality, rob banks, cheat on our taxes, beat our children and spouses, kill, etc. We make many bad choices because we get so far from God that the consequences of our sins no longer inject fear in our lives. Satan has made sin a lot of fun, and I spent many years enjoying his sinful gifts. But, I got right with the Lord Jesus Christ, and He opened my eyes to the evil that I had once partaken of. Slowly but surely, He guided me away from Satan's offerings, and cleaned me up. And the closer I get to Jesus, the less attractive the ways of the world become.

You see, this world is messed up. The other day I heard on the news that gays were complaining about people useing the phrase "that's so gay" when they describe things. These same people have no problem with TV shows that no longer bleep the name of my Lord and Savior when taken in vain. This messed up country is more worried about offending the homosexual community than they are about offending hundred of millions of Christians. America is sick, and allowing gay marriage is just going to make it worse.

"The act is not what makes a homosexual a homosexual. "

Then the act of having sex with children is not what makes a pedophile a pedophile?

"Should one's beleif be the basis for discrimation in employment, housing, credit, marriage? "

So Mormans should be allowed to marry as many partners as they wish right?

A father and Daughter could also marry with that reasoning if they were two consenting adults?

Looks like we are in the process of throwing out a lot of those old fuddy duddy ideas about families to me.

"Then the act of having sex with children is not what makes a pedophile a pedophile?" No... the desire is what makes a pedophile a pedophile. The act is what makes a pedophile a criminal.

"So Mormans should be allowed to marry as many partners as they wish right? " Personally... as long as they don't screw the tax system in doing it, go for it. Be kinda like old biblical times and whatnot...

"A father and Daughter could also marry with that reasoning if they were two consenting adults?" No... but first cousins can marry in Maine.

family -

* Pronunciation: \?fam-l?, ?fa-m?-\

* Function: noun

* Inflected Form(s): plural fam·i·lies

* Etymology: Middle English familie, from Latin familia household (including servants as well as kin of the householder), from famulus servant

* Date: 15th century

1 : a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head : household

2 a : a group of persons of common ancestry : clan b : a people or group of peoples regarded as deriving from a common stock : race

3 a : a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation : fellowship b : the staff of a high official (as the President)

4 : a group of things related by common characteristics: as a : a closely related series of elements or chemical compounds b : a group of soils with similar chemical and physical properties (as texture, pH, and mineral content) that comprise a category ranking above the series and below the subgroup in soil classification c : a group of related languages descended from a single ancestral language

5 a : the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family b : spouse and children

6 a : a group of related plants or animals forming a category ranking above a genus and below an order and usually comprising several to many genera b in livestock breeding (1) : the descendants or line of a particular individual especially of some outstanding female (2) : an identifiable strain within a breed

7 : a set of curves or surfaces whose equations differ only in parameters

8 : a unit of a crime syndicate (as the Mafia) operating within a geographic area

On 9/22/09 at 3:49 PM, newportres wrote:

*********

I see a fondness of your's to take things from context before remarking on them. Then making remarks that are generalizations that ramble. Based on these obsevations, I'm going to conclude you are a "Christian Fundamentalist". If not, was taught how to debate by them. Plus, I'm having serious doubts regarding your comprehension skills. If you are still reading this, the act of having sex with children is pedophilia. A pedophile is one who has the desire to act upon this. The act of having sex with someone of the same gender is homosexuality. I have met several heterosexual people who have experimented with homosexuality only to find it definitly wasn't for them. As they had homosexual acts does this make them homosexuals? I also know several homosexual people who have had a heterosexual relationship of somre sort and realized it definityly wasn't for them. ONE of the key differences between a homosexual and a pedophile is a homosexual does this with a consenting adult. A pedophile uses his/her age, size and aggression to exert control on a child.

"So Mormans should be allowed to marry as many partners as they wish right?

A father and Daughter could also marry with that reasoning if they were two consenting adults? "

Mormans tried that, the feds made it illegal. Personnally, I have no problems with polygomy as long as all involved are CONSENTING adults. The legal ramifications may be a bit of a problem as the spouse is usually considered the final say as "next of kin". With several spouse that could be quite an interesting discussion. And personally, I don't need more women reminding me to take out the trash or "put the lid down".

As for the Father/Daughter thing? My first reaction was "ewwwww", but then, that's just my opinion. It has been proved medically that this is not a good combination. The Federal government agreed with this finding and instated a law denying such a union. As of recently, they have found no medical reason to NOT allow to members of the same sex to be united in any kind of union, regardless of the name of such institution.

On 9/22/09 at 3:56 PM, tedlick wrote:

No... but first cousins can marry in Maine.

*******

Okay, there's another one for my "ewww" catagory. I barely even speak to my first cousins, much less want to marry them. :-)

Bravo, oldgrump and CattailMom: So logical.

I don't understand some of these minds...father and daughter,etc. They are relatives....blood relation usually. We are discussing two same sex consenting adults who only wish to improve their lives and the lives of any children they may be parents to.......to have certain protections (whether hospital visitation,etc.) Yes, all some of these minds can focus on is the sexual aspect. Kind of makes you wonder about those minds!

"That's so gay." As most know, this is a deliberate comment and is not speaking of gay in the sense of cheerful,etc. Like much jargon and catch phrases, people got carried away with it. When I heard my kids saying it when they picked it up in school, I did not care for it and would say so (but if you make a big thing of it, teenagers are apt to use it more!) There are words that refer to certain ethnic groups that I would not care for my children to use either.....it would not make me proud.

"I'm going to conclude you are a "Christian Fundamentalist". If not, was taught how to debate by them. "

Wrong on both counts but since that is usually the only pigeon hole yourside has for people besides just dismissing them as bigots I can see why you might get it wrong.

"If you are still reading this, the act of having sex with children is pedophilia. A pedophile is one who has the desire to act upon this."

Homosexuality is the same motivation with someone of the same sex is it not?

My point would be that if homosexuals actually want to define themselves as a sexual gender and as such eligible for protection from discrimination then by the same definition Pedos are a sexual gender and can not be discriminated against.

Yes the sex act they perform is against the law but homosexuality used to be as well. Their partner is too young per the law but as recent events have shown laws change. So what is wrong and against the law today may not be tomorrow unless we draw a hard line somewhere in moral values and stick to it.

If not a simple change of the law in the future by a special interest group could change the definition of age of consent with out Maine people having any say in it.

But that couldn't happen could it?

"I don't understand" Happens so often with this person. Kind of makes you wonder about her mind.

On 9/22/09 at 5:30 PM, newportres wrote:

Wrong on both counts but since that is usually the only pigeon hole yourside has for people besides just dismissing them as bigots I can see why you might get it wrong.

****

"yourside"? Speaking of pigeon holing people.

And I don't believe I ever said your were a bigot, I was directing my comments towards your style of debating. I also don't believe I said the "Christian Fundamentalist" were bigots, I was, again, commenting on their style of debating. Bigot is not a word I choose to use when debating with people. I may question their motives, beliefs, ideology, intellect, education. That doesn't mean I "automaticly" assume they are a bigot.

Susan Davis's letter "Congressional challenge" makes me wonder if what happened to Mesha Irazarry would happen to a congressperson? She had medical insurance from 1980 to 2002. She warned the health insurer's medical staff nurse that giving her a glucose solution might kill her because she was diabetic, and the nurse told her to "Shut up" and administered it anyway. Mesha lost consciousness and was sent to Intensive Care. From "Street Sheet" at cohfs.org .

"28 industrialized nations have single payer universal health care systems." - Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm .

"yourside"? Speaking of pigeon holing people."

You are committe to one side of this position aren't you?

You sure don't sound unsure.

If you are pro-gay marriage then that is your side and your side is really big on pulling out the labels pretty quick.

Which is what you attempted to do.

RE live and let live. There is a certain unintentional arrogance about saying that marriage is ordained by "the church". First off, there is not one church, there are many different churches and many different religions, some of which do not have a problem with the bonding of two children of their god in marriage. Secondly, you have to get a marriage license at a municipal building, and more marriages are performed in municipal buildings than any church in the world. It is a church's right to adopt whatever tenets they want to believe in; we have freedom of religion in this wonderful country, and your church may ban gay marriage in your church, but that should be the limits of your powers over others. it's about time that churches and religious leaders should recognize this.

As for my style of debate I am only trying to get you to address the point of sexual nature. If as homosexuals claim they are cursed at birth with their sexual preferance aren't the other sexual devients so cursed?

If so do we now start applying special consideration and changing laws for them.

After all only the law stands in the way of their happiness.

"Secondly, you have to get a marriage license at a municipal building, and more marriages are performed in municipal buildings than any church in the world."

I'd sure like to see the link to the data on this one.

On 9/22/09 at 5:46 PM, newportres wrote:

Again, I question your comprehension skills. I did not "attempt" to label anybody. I did a comparison of debating styles. YOU chose to turn it into a label.

As for "my side", I believe civil laws should apply to all. You are the one who asserted that homosexuality was a choice. I merely pointed out that so are beliefs. You ASSUMED I was attacking you. I was merely commenting on your debating style.

Did any of you watch Katie Curic tonight interviewing Glenn Beck?????????

On 9/22/09 at 5:48 PM, newportres wrote:

******

If homosexuality and homosexuals where a threat to a person's body, property, well being, then I would agree that no law should be created to allow them any equality. As the only thing I see homosexuals being a threat to are peoples peconceived perceptions of them, I see no reason to deny them the same protections that are provided under the State Constitution

It's Katie Couric....and no, I watched ABC tonight. Oh well......I will live!!

tarheel: You are correct. Yes, there is freedom of religion , thankfully, in this country....freedom for all religions, that is.

oldgrump: I like your logic....

5:48 PM, newportres: I've never heard any gay person claimed they were "cursed" by being born gay. that is a descriptive that you are putting on them. Who says your gay neighbors are 'deviant'? Isn't that your bigotry putting that name to a group of people, kinda like the feeling that folks of color are 'inferior'? How can you relate homosexuality to pedophilia? Who cares if pedophilias are born or created. Pedophilia is a criminal act, it has a victim. Homosexuality is not a criminal act. It takes place between two consenting adults ` there are no victims. Why are you so wound up about a group of people that would like to have the same rights as the rest of us. "Cursed"? "Deviant"? You really have a feeling of superiority about your own tastesw, don't you? I'd love to get your spouses input on your needs.

ty Cher.

I have an agreement with a poster on one of the other sites. When one sees the other one start to lose it the saner one will suggest a a break, to step back, take a breath, count to 500 (or whatever), compose themselves. I strongly try to suggest that to all posters. When one's emotions get the better of them, they tend to lose the debate. And with this particular issue, that is a tough thing to remember. One of the quickest ways to "win" an argument is to make your opponent lose their temper. Not a very fair practice, but one I've seen used over and over in here.

5:48 PM, newportres, you are using "deviant" in a negative way and comparing it to those pathological sexual practices that harm people or are illegal. Homosexuality does not fall into that catagory according to the experts on human behavior. It is not illegal and same gender relationships exist. While it's true that homosexuality deviates from the majority, calling gay people deviants is offensive. They may be cursed as far as you are concerned but they wouldn't use that term. You seem to be referring to my earlier statements that nobody would choose to be gay. That is true. People like you call them names, mistreat them, deny them human rights and are unashamed in doing it. Who would choose that?

I think the deviant he is talking about is their sexual behaviour. It's kind of comparable to bestiality. It's no more a natural act for men to be with men or women to be with women than it is for a human to be with an animal.

I think most straight people actually view the act in these terms. Not saying that it is accurate, but it is a popular view amongst most straight people. Many of my friends have the same view.

it is the most destructive of all the perversions. It is an insidious lie. It has managed to gain so much ground simply because its between two consenting adults, but a true perversion it is nonetheless. Mainers will be given another chance to stop it this November. It will only happen if people care enough to get out and vote.

VOTE YES ON ONE!

forhimtoday, I have been reading all of your posts (even the long ones) I think you are doing a good job, it must be very hard sometimes to be attacked but still know you are doing the right thing. I respect you for it.

forHIMtoday: you might win the skirmish this fall but you will certainly lose the battle. Talk with most young people. They've no issue with homosexuality. To them it is a non issue. Unless, of course, they were taught in christian schools. I had a young man visiting last night, goes to a christian school. He was referring to gay folk as 'fags', he was also referring to mexicans as 'spics' and chinese as 'chinks'. I presumed he must have learned that from his school. Don't christians witness? They sure do.

letterreader, you almost have it right. I may lose the battle but ultimately homosexuals will lose the war in the end. This has been prophetically predicted in the bible. This is ultimately all in Gods plan. He said this would happen in the end times. We are oh so close and I personally can't wait for His ultimate return.

In the mean time the battle rages on.

sincity, thank you for your kind words.

That's absolutely absurd to think he learned that at a Christian school. Me thinks your fibbing.

I wouldn't want to be standing in front God as a homosexual. Look at what happened to Soddom and Gomorrah. (SP??)

I also wouldn't want to stand in front of him as a murderer either.

There are many things that we can't control, but we can control our bodily functions, especially our sexual urges.

ALL Christian schools teach the students to use the terms, "Fags, Chinks and Spics". It's the whole basis of the curriculum.

Just ask letterreader! He would never use one young man's language (visiting?) to condemn a whole group.

Does God have genitals?

"There are many things that we can't control, but we can control our bodily functions, especially our sexual urges.

Please don't go there!

That's far enough.

I thought it was Gentiles!?

9:50 pm, ha ha. No, genitals. We seem to presume that God is male, so does this mean "he" comes equipped, so to speak? I only ask because this anti- gay marriage argument seems to hinge an awful lot on genitalia.

My God, what have I missed?

oldgrump: Re 8:14 PM Yes. Oh it is so obvious and has been for some time...the manipulation....."trying " to put someone on the defensive, etc. ...insult them ,etc......no "winning" there, though.

8:40 PM, SinCity, now you've pissed me off. If that is a popular view among straight people, the pathology lies within them! Animals are NOT consenting adults and they do not interact with people equally and in the loving manner of 2 people.

forHIM, vote anyway you like, it's not going to change people's sexuality.

" I merely pointed out that so are beliefs. You ASSUMED I was attacking you. I was merely commenting on your debating style. "

Actually you attempted to stear the issue towards beliefs so that you would not need yo address the subject of morals but that is pretty common.

WilliamDS wrote:

"It is not illegal and same gender relationships exist. While it's true that homosexuality deviates from the majority, calling gay people deviants is offensive. They may be cursed as far as you are concerned but they wouldn't use that term. You seem to be referring to my earlier statements that nobody would choose to be gay. That is true. People like you call them names, mistreat them, deny them human rights and are unashamed in doing it. Who would choose that? "

It's not illegal any longer is what I think you mean. Morality changes and things that used to be illegal now are not illegal. I guess I'm just wondering where you progressives will draw a line in the future. So far I'm not seeing one. As long as we change the law before hand and let people get used to things we can then change it in other ways and take even greater steps into your new world.

Gotta love incrementalism.

the cursed term did come from your assertions that they would not choose to be who they are and all I was saying was that neither would those others who deviate from the sexual norms so they must have genetic abnormalities too. If these people take offense to the reality that they are not the norm I'm not sure that making laws to try and convince them that they are normal will help.

William DS

Why do animals need to consent? We don't get their consent to eat them and I would bet that is much more harmful to them. Just a matter of changing the law.

oldgrump some oldbiddies insult so easily.

9:34 PM, forHIMtoday: so I'm fibbing because you can't believe what i've said? 2 of my sons and i sat here and listenened to this semi educated young man use these very terms. My youngest son called him on it and the young man couldn't actually grasp what he was saying that was so wrong. Of course he probably did not learn this in his school, but intolerance of others leads to this sort of arrogance. He sure in the heck learned it somewhere. I can assure you i did not invent this anecdote. It pretty well paralellels your calling homosexuals 'sinners', as if you're their (self-righteous) judge. Leave the juding to that god of yours.

gee letter reader you posted just last night the following:" I had a young man visiting last night, goes to a christian school. He was referring to gay folk as 'fags', he was also referring to mexicans as 'spics' and chinese as 'chinks'. I presumed he must have learned that from his school."

How foolish of me to think you were implying he learned it at a Christian school. Nice backpeddling job this morning though. It in now way parallels Homosexuals. A persons race cannot be compared to a persons perversion. As far as judging others you need to learn the full content of scripture before you spout off, otherwise you just passed judgement on me which would make you a hypocrite by your own standards now wouldn't it.

forHIMtoday: I didn't back pedal at all. You read into my anecdote whatever your prejudgement and narrow sightedness has fed you. Your vision is blurred by your narrow view of life. I did not judge you at all, i merely pointed out that intolernce leads to the name calling and judgemental attitude that you fundamentalists throw around so easily. This young man has learned that it's ok to call derogatory names because the Xtian upringing that has shaped him tells him it's okay to be intolerant. He has learned this from people like you that lay judgements upon others. You've judged that other who love, if they don't follow your narrow definition of love, are 'perversions'....just the language you probably use around young Xtians who will go out and say'fag'. You've proved my point.

Re: the new ad from Stand For Marriage Maine and education. Ms. Charla Bansley, an English teacher from a non-secular Ellsworth school and state director of the Concerned Women For America of Maine appears. Stand for Marriage Maine has already admitted that the line "Homosexual marriage taught in public schools whether parents like it." was not meant to be taken literally, but here they go again anyway...

Here is a letter written by a student from her class:

I actually am a student of Ms. Charla Bansley. In our English class, of which she teaches, we were, school wide, given the project of writing a letter to the editor of our local newspaper, the Bangor Daily News, expressing our views on same sex marriage, whether we were for it or against it. I, myself, decided to write for it. Well, that turned out to not be such a good idea after all. I almost got expelled. I was specifically told, that I was allowed, as everyone else was given the choice, to write one way or the other and that would not effect my grade. I found out that was true, but what I wasn’t told was that if I was to write for Gay marriage, my letter would be given to our principal, my parents, and our “superintendent”. The outcome was that a meeting was called, (now this is a Christian school, mind you, and a very strict one at that, in some respects), to discuss my letter. My mother had signed off on letting me admit my letter, but had not remembered doing so, (I had been in a rush that morning and asked her while she was still in bed, bad idea.). So the meeting was held one night after our church service, and we sorted the matter out, I claimed to have been the “Devil’s Advocate,” which I most certainly was because I hate to follow a crowd, and I wrote for it (as everyone else had wrote against it. Given there are only 50 something kids in our high school.) Later on I was informed by my father that if that meeting had not gone well, I most probably would’ve been expelled. I was shocked, dumbfounded! I could not believe that my little one page letter, (which didn‘t get published after all, even though I got a B on it.), could’ve possibly have gotten me expelled. I do love my school, and Ms. Bansley is a wonderful teacher, don’t get me wrong about that, I just wished to express this somewhat publicly.

Anonymous.

Perhaps this student should not have taken Ms. Bansley's "choice" of position on the assignment "literally".

Jack B.

Geez got to get to work...

The only intolerance a child should be taught is to be intolerant of sin. Not my opinion or your opinion of sin but what the bible calls sin. Homosexuality is clearly forbidden in the bible. Christian kids should be taught that. Your kids should be taught that, if you neglect to thats certainly your prerogative. My kids are also taught that we are all sinners. We are born sinners. Any parent can tell you you don't have to teach a child to lie, you have to teach a child to tell the truth. You have to teach a child how to share, they already know how to be selfish. You have to teach a child how to behave appropriately and on and on. See how far we've gone the other way. See how accepting we've become of sin. Rather than teach a child abstinence, give them condoms and instructions on how to use them. If that fails, bring them to the nearest abortion clinic and chop the little baby to pieces. Something has gone terribly wrong with our society and it can be clearly traced to our acceptance of more and more sin. Our country is not only on the verge of financial collapse but also spiritual collapse. Homosexuality is a lie that our country is on the verge of embracing. I applaud anyone with the courage to stand up against it and say NO you will not redefine marriage or teach it to our kids!

free2bee - would you provide your source for that letter? I know that religious organizations aren't bound by anti-discrimination laws, but I'm a bit surprised at this blatant example of suppression of free speech. If I were "anonymous's" mother I would pull my child out of that school pronto! What a terrible thing to indoctrinate a child with.

A lot of missing comments. The censors have been busy.

There was a woman I knew growing up, the daughter of close family friends. Over a 25 year period she was married 3 times and I have no idea of how many relationships she had otherwise. What I do know is that she made what we might call "poor choices" in men. Alcoholics, drug abusers, and physical abusers. I remember 2 small but very visible scars on her face caused by physical abuse. She was what most men would call beautiful, a natural blond who could have passed as Marilin Monroe. Religious, went to church every week, and a good mother to her many children. (Tricky here, to give enough information to give you an idea of her life without giving away enough so anyone could identify her.)

Several years ago I ran into her when she was having a life crisis and we talked for a long time. And this is the gist of her story. After her third divorce she had a woman move in with her to share expenses. The other woman was a lesbian and was in love with her. Over a period of years the relationship deepened and my friend did come to love the other woman as well. Eventually the relationship became sexual as well although this caused my friend great distress because of her religious beliefs. My friend revealed to me that she found the sex disgusting and was unable to participate actively but that she submitted to the other woman because it was so important to her. The life crisis at the time was that the two women had broken up because my friend had had an affair with a man. They did reconcile and the last I knew were still together.

This is one case I have personal knowledge of where it was a choice to live as a homosexual.

jkershaw http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/ the new ad is there on the right and links to the letter.

seeker - there are studies that show women are more "fluid" in their sexuality. One might also suggest that she is bi-sexual - attraction to male and female.

Jack B.

letterreader 8:04 And calling others intolerant or fundamentalists or narrow sighted or arrogant is some how neither name calling or judgmental? You lefties throw such terms around with little thought of the hypocrisy it reveals in your beliefs and positions.

You don't seem to understand that when you label or denounce someone for what you consider their judgmental ism that you yourself are being judgmental. I call that intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.

free2bee I know, you just can't possibly accept that any story that does not support your beliefs about homosexuality so you have to spin it to fit your world view.

I have known this woman for over 40 years. You don't. Among other things she felt trapped in this relationship for financial reasons. She had little schooling and her lesbian partner was the major breadwinner. And she does love her lesbian partner. That is without doubt. But she has no sexual attraction for women. As I said, she SUBMITS because of her love. It is a very complex relationship.

free2bee you can come with all the excuses you want. You can put your little twist on it all for which you are infamous. You think your answers are all so clever. Try as you might, its a sin and a lustful perversion. You are in my humble opinion far more dangerous than what you accuse Michael Heath of being. You have no idea about the true meaning of Christianity and scripture but come across here as someone who is both christian, pro-homosexual, pro-choice when in reality you are leading more people astray than anyone else. I could tell all along you had no idea of what you were talking about when it came to the bible. You are clearly an enemy of Christianity, whether its intentional or purposely that I don't know. I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and resigned myself to it being nothing more than ignorance on your part. Only the Lord knows your true heart. That being said, for you to trash Heath, billy Graham, Mrs Norris and a host of other Godly people I would seriously make sure of my calling if I were you. You should be very afraid. You are the lukewarm person in revelation 3:16

"I applaud anyone with the courage to stand up against it and say NO you will not redefine marriage or teach it to our kids!"

Already being (and in some cases, already been) redefined. Already an open topic for discussion in many schools in Maine and beyond.

Killing marriage equality in Maine will not stop it. Marriage equality in Maine has nothing to do with it.

The world is moving away from you. You are being left behind.

The momentum is built, and it's going to bring the equality under the government that we seek.

"Try as you might, its a sin and a lustful perversion."

And THAT is an opinion. Nothing more.

seeker....if your friend is submitting to something she does not wish to do....either for financial reasons or through force or intimidation, that would fall under the criminal code as RAPE! Rather that holding her out on these pages as a victim of a lesbian, maybe you should be telling her to seek legal advice and/or the involvement of the police. She is the victim of a violent crime and should have the assistance she needs to get out of this relationship.

seeker - I was not saying you do not know her - it is a very sad thing that she feels she must submit to intimacy that she does not want and is not comfortable with. So is she truly a "lesbian" or has she taken on that identity because she submits? If she is not attracted physically/sexually how does she fit the definition? Seriously.

Jack B.

forHIM again thank you for treating me as you expect to be treated. Pro-choice? Yes as in the life of the mother. Yes in the case of rape. Yes in the case of incest. No as a form of birth control. No if the child has a chance for life at the time of saving the mother. In you are showing me how you want to be treated - you are showing that side of you to others here who may not be aware.

Jack B.

So if I am understanding this correctly, this friend of seeker's is pretending to be a lesbian for financial reasons (prostitution). It doesn't sound that much different from the more typical story of a gay person pretending to be heterosexual. I thought that's what all the anti- gay marriage people wanted, is for gays to pretend not to be gay. I don't see how that story proves that homosexuality is a choice. Clearly this person is not gay.

JD2000 9:50 As i said, the relationship is complex. I agree with you that it could be interpreted as rape and the relationship is in some ways abusive. But from the opposite viewpoint, it is also consensual. I did not portray her as a "victim" of a lesbian. That is your take on it. The relationship is messy and complicated like many real world relationships. What I pointed out was that she CHOSE this lifestyle for many intertwined and complex reasons. That it is not ideal or fit your or my idea of what a relationship should be is immaterial.

You think she should go to the police. That would mean that she would lose her companion of 20 years. A companion she LOVES. She would hurt someone she LOVES. Get it? The point I was making is that while she has no intrinsic sexual attraction to other women, (I believe that IS what defines a true homosexual), she continues to have sex with the partner because she loves her and that she has made a CHOICE to live as a homosexual. Is this any different really that the husband or wife who has sexual relations with a spouse because they love them even though they may no longer feel actual sexual attraction for that person because of an issue such as extreme weight gain?

ted this is getting really old.

"Already being (and in some cases, already been) redefined."

Mr. Websters is not the book that many turn to for their

definitions of right and wrong. And Mainers will decide

in Nov. And I have every faith they will decide correctly.

free2bee 9:56 That is the whole point. My friend is not a homosexual in that she is not attracted sexually to women. She definitely feels it for men. The "wrong" kind of men, but men none the less. But for many reasons she has chosen the homosexual lifestyle. Something that many claim just doesn't happen because it is inconvenient to their argument that homosexuality is not a choice. (For the record, I believe that for most homosexuals it is NOT a choice.)

jkershaw 10:09 That is not what I said and yous is a particularly loathsome twisting of my story.

"Mr. Websters is not the book that many turn to for their definitions of right and wrong."

But it IS one of the most popular English dictionaries in the world. I've never implied that it was a moral compass. And globally, the more countries that allow same sex marriage, the more the definition will settle around these constructs.

Get tired of it if you wish: it's the truth.

seeker, may readers could read your post and come away with the idea that JD2000 did - I will admit I skimmed it when I replied (working at home and looking after our one year old). Your assessment, "Is this any different really that the husband or wife who has sexual relations with a spouse because they love them even though they may no longer feel actual sexual attraction for that person because of an issue such as extreme weight gain?", I don't get.

If someone loses interest physically in their spouse does it mean they are no longer attracted to that person specifically or to all people of that gender? To me it means that person for whatever reason. It does not mean that you are no longer attracted to that gender. You say she loves this woman - but is it "romantic" love or "platonic" love? If she is having consensual relations and has not made her true feelings clear, she is deceiving two people.

Just my opinion

Jack B.

seeker, sorry you thought my take on your story was "loathsome." But you have no point. Your friend isn't gay! Do you seriously think gay people want to marry so they can change their sexual preference willy-nilly, or for convenience? That's pretty naive.

seeker- posted as you were - she has not "chosen" to be of an orientation, she has "chosen" to be in that relationship for other reasons.

Jack B.

free2bee, rape and incest is not the issue. Choosing to kill a baby in cold blood That had nothing to do with it is. I truly pray that someday you will look back and appreciate that someone was willing to skip the "sloppy agape", and tell you the truth. You need to know! God I pray that someday you'll understand.

So, just to show that Merriam-Webster isn't the only source of a more modern definition of "marriage", I offer his blob of text... As more and more cultures and countries adopt same-sex marriage, I predict that more and more of these sources will either adopt a genderless definition of "marriage" or will include specifics covering same-sex marriage.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/marriage -- removes all gender from the definition.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/marriage -- includes same sex marriage (also includes polygamy, interestingly)

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/marriage -- includes same sex marriage

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861628509 -- removes all gender from the definition

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Marriage -- removes all gender from the definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage -- includes same-sex marriage

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=marriage -- removes all gender from the definition

http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=marriage -- removes all gender from the definition

http://www.mnemonicdictionary.com/word/marriage -- removes all gender from the difinition

http://lookwayup.com/lwu.exe/lwu/d?s=f&w=marriage#n/10061309 -- removes all gender from the difinition

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574825_4/Marriage.html -- Covers traditional and non-traditional views on marriage in society and culture

http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=marriage -- contains genderless and gendered deifintions

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/marriage?view=uk -- Keeps it traditional (very short definition)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage -- more traditional definition

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?dict=B&searchword=marriage -- keeps it traditional

http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=marriage&matchtype=exact -- keeps it traditional

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/marriage -- keps it traditional

http://ultralingua.com/onlinedictionary/index.html?service=ee&text= -- keeps it traditional

http://www.onelook.com/?other=web1913&w=Marriage -- keeps it traditional

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=marriage -- keeps it traditional

http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=marriage -- keeps it traditional, but refers to Wikipedia for a more in depth discussion

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/marriage -- keeps it traditional: no surprise there.

forHIM, thank you for your prayers.

Jack B.

free2bee 10:37 Her lesbian partner knows how she feels. There is no deception. They have made their compromises and accept their relationship for what it is. Not perfect, but it works for them. Would it work for many others? Obviously not. But there is huge variation in what people are willing to accept as either a fulfilling or acceptable relationship. Just look at what is accepted as marriages or relationships in many other parts of the world. Things that are totally unacceptable here.

jkershaw 10:39 You are blind if you cannot see the point. She did not choose her lifestyle out of convenience. How many times do I have to repeat that she LOVES the other woman. Is it romantic or platonic? I can't get inside her head to determine that and if you asked her I bet she would have trouble answering because after being together this long it is all intertwined. Where does one form end and the other begin? Or are you an absolutist who demands that love be pigeonholed into a neat little box? I never said she< (or implied that any others), changed her sexual preference.

You are right about one thing. By what I believe is the strictly correct physiological definition of homosexuality she is not gay.

free2bee. 10:41 Despite that I believe that she is not gay in a strict psychological definition of homosexuality, she lives in a lesbian relationship including sexual. (As of that time when she and I had those long talks.) She is known by friends and family and community members as a lesbian. Like it or not, she CHOSE this lifestyle. Like it or not, some people do choose. I have no idea how many any more than you do. It turns out that it isn't so simple to put people into convenient little boxes like gay and straight as many would like.

H|RH419- Jacob is doing quite well - after the tests next week hopefully they will be able to "tweak" his meds. We are in awe of the improvement thus far. Hair is beginning to grow back for both of us - just in time for winter :)

I think forHIM got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning - seems a little aggressive. Maybe he should go back to bed for a bit and re-think the way in which he is treating other posters. I like him better when he is calm.

Jack B.

seeker, people choose different paths for different reasons. It appears she has taken on an identity that is not truly hers. Self-deceiving is sad.

Jack B.

free2bee by your logic I could claim that anyone who makes a choice that you disagree with could be said to be self-deceiving.

Just because we think a choice was made for reasons we personally disagree with does not change the fact that it was a choice.

What about your choice to be a liberal? Was that self-deceiving?

free2bee by your logic I could claim that anyone who makes a choice that you disagree with could be said to be self-deceiving.

Just because we think a choice was made for reasons we personally disagree with does not change the fact that it was a choice.

What about your choice to be a liberal? Was that self-deceiving?

Re: 11:12 Wow Ted, You have a bunch of time on

your hands. But you still didn't list the correct book.

free2bee, thanks for the update, I had been wondering.

You'll definately need that growth back. It was neat that

you did that for him. Hopefully Santa brings each of you

a good wool cap : )

seeker, based on what you have said, your friend is not a lesbian, she does not fit the definition of a lesbian, she has a heterosexual orientation. The fact that she is having a consensual relationship ,for whatever reason, with a lesbian (who is attracted to women and therefore has a different orientation) does not make her one. If she is sexually attracted to men, not women, she is heterosexual. I am a male who is sexually attracted to my wife who is a female (she'd get mad if I said I was attracted to women), have never been sexually attracted to another male, therefore I have a heterosexual orientation. It really is quite simple. Regardless of any "pseudo-science you have been directed to, there is no cure for either one, only behavioral changes - the attraction remains.

My sister self-deceived (lied to herself) through a marriage and a few years passed it before she admitted to herself her true orientation.

You may assume what you like about my political affiliations but you are only assuming. You may think I am a liberal but that does not make it true. I could assume by that comment that you are conservative, but that would be just an assumption.

Jack B.

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

seeker, even Alan Chambers of Exodus Int. says that the attraction does not go away. "["Ex-gay" is] too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. “By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete,” Chambers said". That was back in 2007. Do I think that gays and lesbians can 'not give into temptation' ? Do I think that straight people can 'not give into temptation' ? Sure that is what you call celibacy. Is Alan Chambers married with children? Yes. But the attraction to men is still with him.

Jack B.

tedlick, they don't seem to be able to make any case at all without having to resort to lies.

And a recovering alcoholic will always live with the urge. Still much healthier, physically and spiritually to abstain from drunkenness. Thousands have been delivered from their homosexual perversion.

"Thousands have been delivered from their homosexual perversion. "

If the urge is there, nothing has been cured. It's not about the behavior. It's about the nature of attraction.

Bad analogy is bad.

you are wrong again (as usual) Temptation is not the sin, acting on it is. Great analogy!