MaineCare facts
The budget shortfall in the Department of Health and Human Services relating to MaineCare, Maine’s Medicaid program, has made headlines for months now. In that time we’ve seen and heard a lot of misleading information about the MaineCare program. As a longtime member of the state Legislature’s Appropriations Committee, I’d like to clarify a few facts to correct the record.
MaineCare is a health care program, not a welfare service. MaineCare provides health insurance and prescription drug coverage for the elderly, disabled, mentally ill and the poor. Seventy percent of enrollees are children, seniors or individuals with disabilities. MaineCare payments go to hospitals and health care providers to pay for care, not directly into the pockets of eligible individuals.
Since 2006, the total funding for the MaineCare program has been largely flat despite a growth in enrollment and growth in the cost of health care. The cost of the program has increased by less than 10 percent in the last six years, while health care costs have grown at double the rate.
Growth in enrollment has largely been linked to the recession and from moving nearly 20,000 seniors and people with disabilities from a state-funded program into a prescription drug program funded through MaineCare, which is paid for with help from matching federal dollars.
The shortfall in DHHS was not caused by an increase of enrollment on the program. The cost of enrollment growth accounts for only 6.5 percent of the total projected shortfall.
Rep. Peggy Rotundo
D-Lewiston
Golden agreement
Thank you for publishing the Feb 8 Op-Ed by Richard Dudman, “The best decade of the golden years,” that includes facts and concepts that should be a required course in the curriculum of life.
As a 92-year-old, I could have coped better in the past year if I had followed Mr. Dudman’s advice for actions in the 70s and 80s instead of waiting until the truth of aging really hits and finding myself shouting angrily “Why didn’t somebody tell me?”
And he is so right about the many advantages that come to us as we age — it is not bad at all with caring family members and friends who make every day a blessing and a joy.
Katherine O. Musgrave
Orono
Not the same
Will Maine people again support the marriage institution that was started by the Jewish people 3,000 — more or less — years ago?
It is interesting that the phrase “to marry” has been put to use by others, such as by chefs and by builders. A builder may speak of marrying a coloring agent with cement. A chef may speak of marrying a flavor or a food coloring with a food.
In every such case, the marrying is of two very different things, as it has been for thousands of years with a man and woman. Same sex couples are, of course, not eligible for marriage. Really!
If they would not imitate heterosexuals they might be admired more. Leave marriage alone. Name your our relationship, maybe equality family, equality partnership, affair, etc.
If in a family setting same sex parents care for children it would be less confusing, more honest, if those children know you to be not married like men and women but different with your own relationship and name for it.
John Wescott
Belfast
Romney’s navy numbers
in his appearance in Portland, Mitt Romney repeated his complaint that the U.S. Navy has fewer ships than it did in 1917. He never bothers to mention the tragic lack of cavalry horses, pack mules and carrier pigeons, also at all-time lows.
Mr. Romney clearly doesn’t understand naval warfare or naval procurement. There were no aircraft carriers in 1917, nor nuclear submarines. The 6th Fleet, with three carrier groups, probably had more firepower than the combined 1917 navies of Britain, Germany and the U.S. combined. And that doesn’t include the other eight carrier groups.
Whose navy would he rather we had? Who has a larger, more powerful navy? He insults all our naval personnel, not to mention our intelligence, with claims like this.
Robert R. O’Brien
Peaks Island
Not so efficient
I nearly spit out my coffee as I reached the next-to-last paragraph of the editorial “Wrong Choice” in the Feb. 10 BDN. It must have been the shock of seeing the words “socialism and efficiency” in the same sentence.
I look about for the “sarcasm” label. Finding none, I had to conclude that the editorialist had either a faulty understanding of history or a case of selective amnesia. Whichever the case, the column blithely overlooked the fact that the most massive example of state socialism — that of the former Soviet Union and its satellite minions — was a failure of epic proportions. The only reason soviet socialism survived for more than seven decades was through its oppressive apparatus for enforced compliance.
Stunning in its wrongheadedness is the column’s example of socialistic “efficiency” — one neighborhood latte shop taking the place of three. It raises many disturbing questions, including the following:
Who decides which of the three shops is chosen to stay in business, and what are the criteria used to make the determination?
Absent the competition from the neighborhood shops, what is the incentive for the remaining shop to maintain a high quality of product and service?
What happens to the now unemployed owners and staff of the defunct latte shops?
Just asking.
David Dean
Sangerville
LePage is right
I was very offended by the Danby cartoon of Feb. 10 depicting Gov. Paul LePage as the bad guy wanting to hurt people by cutting benefits.
Gov. LePage is being forced to make difficult decisions because of unparalleled expansion in health care coverage by the Baldacci administration. MaineCare enrollment has grown 78 percent while the state population has grown 7 percent in the last 20 years. Medicaid spending has increased by $1 billion over the last 10 years, a 45 percent increase.
I am grateful Gov. LePage has the personal integrity and courage to recognize the unsustainability of this program. I would encourage both the House and Senate to support the structural reforms necessary so we can help the truly needy.
Nancy Cook
Brownville
Robert–Mitt has certain things he has been told to say, his managers don’t want him to go off course and if you have followed anything he has said not on script I understand why he must stay on script.
I do thank you for your mention of the tragic lack of cavalry horses, pack mules and carrier pigeons,
are at an all time low, this was something I am sure many people would overlook. I sure hope all the Republicans become aware of this.
Great letter!!!!!!!
Nancy Cook– I am sure you have available all the back up for your figures, would you be so kind
to tell us where to find them not only myself but to all the readers.
John Wescott– I say let anybody who wants to marry to go ahead, they should suffer like the rest
of us men & women.
Peggy– thanks for the information, it seems so difficult for polititions to tell it like it is, and I hope
you have given us correct info.
It used to be that a woman was the property of man in marriage, would you claim that changing that is meddling? It used to be that a man could have multiple wives, is changing that meddling? Interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the country not too long ago, was a court calling that wrong meddling? Was that another case of activist judges?
Gay parents are already raising children. In some states and countries, they’re legally married. So, sorry, the definition has already changed. Also, I find it a pretty poor excuse that you’ll deny your fellow Americans the rights and responsibilities of marriage just because you don’t want to explain to your children that some families are different than yours. That’s pretty ridiculous to me.
John Wescott twice brings color into his argument against marriage equality, with his references to chefs and builders. Mr. Wescott, it wasn’t that far back when “color” applied to two heterosexual people being denied marriage…because they were not of the same color..
Stop making lame comparisons. This is about love between two consenting adults. Try to understand that and you’ll be a better person, I assure you.
By the way, if you’re really hung up on the word “marriage”, look it up at Webster’s online sometime. It’s already been redefined.
Wow – another narrow-minded, bigoted post about marriage. Why limit it to two?
Isn’t marriage about love between any consenting adults, no matter who and no matter what the number?
If your argument relies on changing the subject, do you really have an argument at all?
Who’s changing the subject? The topic at hand is the re-definition of marriage as stated by somaine. I’m just playing the game, using logic to show the unintended consequences. If “gay marriage” is ok, why not polygamy? Why not incest between consenting adults?
Who gave you the moral high ground to place your arbitrary limitations on marriage?
Because incest and polygamy are against the law. Homosexuality is NOT against the law.
Incest is legal in Maine. First cousins can marry. This nulls your point. Polygamy happens I am not sure whether it is good or not I would have to research it. Bestiality hurts a creature that cannot consent. Where do you get the Moral code from. If it is the Bible than you would have to follow it word for word and that would be impossible because it contradicts itself consistently.
Incest is not legal in Maine
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-a/title17-Asec556.html
Please try again.
Ahh you are correct. Incest is limited here. Sorry but I think sleeping with your mothers sisters son is gross. This may not be legal incest but just the same. Yuck and legal.
Are you saying the “yuck ” factor should play a role?
It’s not a yuck factor, it’s the genetic danger of incest.
Cousins are not close enough to be considered incest. Currently 26 states and most countries allow first cousins to marry. The United States is the only Western Nation that has laws against first cousins marrying.
There is little or no genetic drift caused by cousins having children, not even first cousins.
this is an interesting site regarding cousin mariages. http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts
For what it is worth Leviticus 18 lists all forbidden sexual relationships. Cousin relationships are not included.
Edited for spelling
OMG are we really quoting Leviticus here. Seriously. Nobody follows the laws there or we would all be dead.
That was to pre-empt (sp) any religious arguments :)
…but jersey said it was the yuck factor.
So now you’re saying that procreation is involved? Now you’re trotting out the same argument that conservatives make with regard to one of the key elements of marriage is the ability to propagate. Watching you twist yourself into the logical pretzel you’re in now is fantastic.
You love your hyperbole. There is a genetic danger in incest, that why the act itself is illegal among close relatives. The state has an interest in protecting that kind of harm. The act of homosexuality isn’t itself illegal as there is no genetic danger. Further, procreation isn’t relevant to marriage because there is no requirement to procreate in order to wed — notice we allow sterile people to wed for example. So, no, you’re wrong about your little weird pretzel tangent.
First cousins ARE allowed to marry here in Maine, though. Not too much of a genetic issue that far removed.
No hyperbole…just stating the obvious – and you continued down the path of logical inconsistency. To wit:
1) You further tightened the knot on your logical pretzel twist. Your post is self-contradictory. You state that procreation isn’t relevant to marriage, yet you also state that there is a genetic danger to incest (Genetic danger involves procreation).
2) You state that there is genetic danger in incest. Why are you not as concerned about the health dangers inextricably linked to homosexual behavior (much lower life expectancy, AIDS, etc.). These things pose a much greater risk to the general populace.
3) If we’re going to mention the state’s interest, the state has an interest in growing the population and replacing the older generation, which is impossible in a “gay marriage.” While that shouldn’t be the sole determining factor regarding marriage laws, it is an important consideration.
I’ve already differentiated between the act of and marriage. Incest itself is illegal. Homosexuality is not. Your comments about lower life expectancy is based on old and erroneous data. Your “AIDS” comment demonstrates your ignorance, clearly. There is no requirement for straight couples to have children in order to marry, so you can’t use that as an excuse to bar gays from marriage. Further, are homeless shelters all empty? Are there no foster children left? Have all the babies been adopted?
There is no such thing as legal incest. Incest is illegal.
26 states allow first cousin marriages; most people can marry their cousin in the US.
Leviticus 18 lists all forbidden sexual relationships. Cousin relationships are not included.
http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts
Children of non-related couples have a 2-3% risk of birth defects, as opposed to first cousins having a 4-6% risk. Genetic counseling is available for those couples that may be at a special risk for birth defects (e.g. You have a defect that runs in your family) In plain terms first cousins have at a 94 percent + chance of having healthy children. The National Society of Genetic Counselors estimated the increased risk for first cousins is between 1.7 to 2.8 percent, or about the same a any woman over 40 years of age.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uxwm5qr18j5lgrdt
Wow…how closeminded and bigoted of you.
This is exhibit A of why allowing society to set its own standards does not work. Who’s to say what you dislike isn’t actually good?
How do you set your standards? Who are you to say that your standards are right? Where does “hate” and “bigotry” stop and start?
When you have no objective standard of right and wrong, you have no answers to the above questions.
The topic is same sex marriage, not redefining marriage. It is about fairness and equal protection under the law. Its about being a family, about medical care access, and end of life rights. Its about all the sticky parts of marriage, both pleasant and unpleasant, that all should be able to have.
It is about equal rights.
The discussion is about marriage equality for same-sex couples, hence my comment. If you want to advocate for polygamy, go for it. But that’s not the topic at hand.
You could also benefit from not making lame comparisons; it weakens your argument.
Why do you want to limit the discussion? If marriage is to be redefined, let’s do it once and for all. Or perhaps you realize that once you open that Pandora’s box, your argument loses its luster. You have to stifle dissent based on logic and reason because of fear that your lack of such will be exposed.
Marriage has been redefined elsewhere. Your “Pandora’s box” argument fails, because it just doesn’t apply.
This is a single topic…extending marriage rights in Maine to same-sex couples. It’s not about anything else. There’s no slippery slope here, much as opponents of SSM want to dig one up and harp on it ad nauseum.
If you want to argue against SSM, do it in a way that’s logical. Might I suggest you look to places where SSM has been legal for a while and see if any of the fears put out there by opponents have come to be. That would get people’s attention. If not, then perhaps you might want to reconsider your position on the topic. Or admit that you don’t have any facts to back up where you stand…you just hate gay people.
At least you’d be honest.
It fails and doesn’t apply because you say so? That’s your argument? The reason why you have to limit the redefinition of marriage is because “gay marriage” is the cause celeb. The baggage that inevitably comes with redefining marriage is inarguably unattractive, which is why you and others run from it at all costs.
I will agree with you on one thing. This is a single topic – the foundational topic is that of the redefinition of marriage. In order to arrive at your conclusion, you have to redefine it. The question remains: Why do you insist on stopping there?
Regarding your last comment: Straw man much?
It doesn’t work because your comment is the straw man. Your arguing against any alterations to marriage at all. That would mean that we’d have to go back to men owning women and revoke the allowance of interracial marriage.
No – just go back to the original standard set for marriage – one man/one woman as defined by God in Genesis 2. That pattern has served society very well with each having a submissive spirit to each other.
We’re talking about a legal standard here as gays are asking for the legal right to marry and as you are advocating against their legal right to marry. So if you keep stating that we should go back to what it was, it was non-interracial and women were property. This discussion is about the law. Your personal religous beliefs absent any rational basis is not enough to deny one class of people certain rights.
Further, the desire for a reversion isn’t an argument. You could argue that we ought to go back to slavery because we’d just be reverting back. That’s not a compelling enough reason.
Except I, and many other Americans, do no live by your special book. If that is what you believe then don’t get into a same-sex relationship, but don’t force others to live by your interpretation of your religious text. We have been given that freedom in this country. True American Patriots realize this.
Then why is it voted down every time…in every state that has had the chance to vote?
Look how long it took to get equal rights for those of color and women. They didn’t give up because people didn’t want it. They kept fighting for what was right and eventually it passed.
“Gay marriage” may be a “cause celeb”, but that doesn’t make it any less important. And again, the word “marriage” has been redefined…over and over.
Your straw man remark doesn’t fit. I merely suggested that perhaps your issue is with a hatred of gay people. That really is at the hearts of many who oppose marriage equality. They just like to mask it with diversions.
My challenge to you stands; see how things have worked out in states/countries where gay people are allowed to marry each other. Have the doomsday predictions come true?
I’m guessing you won’t. It’s much easier to yell “The sky is falling!”.
Actually the sky is falling. Albeit ever so slowly.
You didn’t merely suggest. You boldly stated that I did, which is untrue. Lying doesn’t help your cause.
Just because other changes to the definition of marriage havent occurred yet, doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future. The fact is, that by redefining marriage, you have opened the door for others to make it apply to their twisted reality.
Marriage was defined by God in Genesis 1 as one man, one woman. Give me an example from the Scriptures or someone who violated that standard and didn’t have problems as a result. The fact that Abraham, Jacob, David, etc. had multiple wives doesn’t justify or indicate God’s approval. In fact, each one of these men experienced big problems because of their disobedience of God’s order.
Care to address my questions? Why are you derailing the conversation? Why does multiple irrelevant issues have to be addressed in order to move forward? I notice this doesn’t happen with other discussions (re: my gun rights example). Why are you forcing those issues to be addressed, but they were never addressed in removing rights of gays (re: DADT, why only gays here speficially and not polygamists?)? Why specifically the one man on woman definition when historically that was not the case? Why were the other alterations permissable (ex. interracial marriage) but not this one?
Polygamy is illegal. Homosexual relationships are not illegal.
I haven’t derailed and the issus raised are not irrelevant. You say they are…by what standard? You haven’t answered my original questions. I’m under no obligation to answer yours.
No, I didn’t state that you hated gays…I presented it as a possible reason for the way you feel. Go back and read what I wrote if you need to.
As far as scriptures go, I’m an atheist, so the bible is a pretty weak argument. If it sets your standards, then don’t marry someone of the same gender.
Do you abide by every law in that book? There’s some pretty weird stuff in there, you know. Or is it just convenient cover to mask your prejudice?
Except I, and many other Americans, do no live by your special book. If that is what you believe then don’t get into a same-sex relationship, but don’t force others to live by your interpretation of your religion’s text. We have been given that freedom in this country. True American Patriots realize this.
So you equate “hate” with making a stand against something? Your closest friends must all be perfect. Heaven forbid they should do something you disagree with.
My life is spent mostly with straight friends. I’ve been around friends of friends who have made hateful comments about gay people. They felt comfortable doing so in my company because there’s nothing “obvious” about me.
No, I don’t equate hate with taking a stand against something when that stand is noble. I do, however, equate hate with bigotry.
Who defines when the stand is “noble” or not? The same people who are redefining marriage? In other words, nobility can change at any time, rendering it meaningless.
Your side is attempting to deny rights to a minority for reasons that amount to nothing more than prejudice…hardly a noble endeavor. The tide of public opinion is slowly, but steadily moving in our favor.
We as a nation are in a moral and spiritual tailspin with all engines ablaze. While it may be creeping slowly in your favor it is hardly a noble endeavor.
Moral and spiritual tailspin? Opinions vary. But saying such a thing speaks to your prejudice against gays, since that’s the topic at hand. There’s no justification for equating equaltiy for same-sex couples with a moral tailspin. And yet, you do.
Yes, unfortunately many involved in organized religion in this country are in a moral and spiritual tailspin as they try to put their own spin on how others should live. Definitely not noble to impose one’s religious beliefs on others in a country where we are free to follow our own paths of belief.
No one is trying to deny anybody’s rights. Under current Maine law, anyone can be married.
Nice twist. Try sticking to the reality at hand.
That is the reality at hand. Prove otherwise. Any man can marry any woman and vice versa, which is how marriage is legally currently defined.
The reality at hand is that gay people want to be able to marry each other, which is not currently possible in Maine. That’s the topic, that’s what’s getting voted on. Why do you insist on smoke and mirrors?
It’s not currently possible because marriage involves a man and a woman. They have every right to be married in accordance with Maine state law. Hence, we’re back to square one. The overarching issue is the redefinition of marriage. And if you’re going to redefine it so you’re not squashing anyone’s “rights,” then you need to be consistent and all-inclusive to allow any definition of marriage.
It’s that simple.
This is a single issue, not a wide-open free-for-all. I cannot fathom why you don’t stick to this one topic…extending marital rights to couples of the same gender who want to marry each other. You’re overreaching in an attempt to muddy the waters and, honestly, it’s not working for you.
Look it up at Webster’s online, if you need help. The first two references are about opposite gender and same gender couplings. Two people in each example.
If you want to argue against SSM, then you’d be smart to be more focused on the topic. Arm yourself with facts, knowing that marriage has already been redefined elsewhere to include gay couples.
Often, I’ve challenged opponents to cite examples of why this has failed in places where it’s been made legal. How has it hurt those societies? I’ve yet to see an answer.
Wait-surely you need to consider that if I am allowed to marry a MAN, for God’s sake, then my cat can marry her favorite chair! There really is no end to it. It’s that simple!
Ahh…Webster. That man needs to go….
Cat and chair! Thus was born (wait for it…) the Cattoman!
You can sit on the bus, sure! Just in the back.
You can marry any woman you want, Mr. Washington. Any woman who’s the same race as you!
You can get a job, sure! There are plenty of secretarial positions available downtown!
I can marry, absolutely! I can just pick out any ol’ dame and, voila!!!
Again, framing the issue to suit spurious arguments. So tiring…
Not true. Sham marriages aren’t legal.
Those who fought for slavery may have considered themselves noble. Afterall they had the BIble and Gods word to back them. However, they were no noble.
The Westboro baptists have the Bible also as do the KKK. They have taken and twisted the Bible much like the homosexuals are. The similarities are astounding aren’t they.
You’re going to claim that you’re not hateful at the same time that you’re comparing gays to the KKK? Get real. Gays have been historically oppressed. By being exiled from countries, sought out and exterminated in the holocaust, by being subjected to McCarthy era raids, to the barring from employment in government positions, etc.
Don’t you dare compare them to the KKK. That is incredibly disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Except you have no problem making the comparison when making your argument for homosexual marriage. My point was the similarities in taking Scripture out of text to support your immorality. I am not hateful towards gays in the least. You have no right to change the definition of marriage based on your lifestyle.
I’m sure they did. But they didn’t have the Bible to back them.
I notice you’re conveniently avoiding the questions you can’t answer.
For the same reason you claim that your beliefs aren’t hateful. It’s a person’s choice to characterize it however they want. Claiming that gays will ruin marriage and it is bad for children? Sounds hateful to me.
Exactly, we have three beautiful daughters all who are either in college or college bound with accolades. Read the studies, children from SS families are just as well off as those from OP families.
The research I read says kids overwhelmingly do better with their biological parents. That would be a mom and a dad. It has stood the test of time since its inception. Kind of contrary to what the liberals studies say.
So then using this logic, we should outlaw adoption of any sort and force biological parents to raise their own children.
Thats not even worthy of a reply.
If your conservative studies say that children are better with their biological parents then we should outlaw adoption. As an adoptee, I can tell you I was NOT better off with my biological parents at that time in their lives. I was adopted into a home that went through the ravages of a bitter divorce. I would have given ANYTHING to be raised by two loving parents whether they be an opposite gender couple or a same-gender couple.
That’s factually untrue. Don’t lie, it’s disgusting. That issue was raised in the Prop 8 cases. Even the experts on the side wishing to uphold Prop 8 admitted that same-sex and adoptive parents are as capable and in fact as effective at raising children as “natural” opposite-sex parents.
Don’t substitute your opinion for the facts of the matter. That is wrong.
Were the homosexuals lying years ago they said this was not about marriage and Christians were just using fear mongering?
No, stopping good hardworking Americans rom being able to marry those they love because you dont agree with it and then saying bad things about them with no standing or scientific backing is hate. Standing up for what you believe in because it is right is not. There is no evidence to support you, not even the Bible.
OK, expand if you wish. How about womens right to vote? Has that led to pets and dogs right to vote? Oh that’s right, it’s almost led to corporations and unions having the vote. The USSC has already declared them as people.
Just where, exactly, in Citizens United v. FEC did the court declare that a corporation is a person?
The other types of relationships that you are referring to are illegal. Homosexuality is not illegal. Another one of those ignorant arguments against same-sex marriage.
Was homosexuality ever against the law?
Was biracial marriage ever against the law?
Is inter-faith marriage against the law?
As cp points out, homsexuality was at one time illegal. Your post, therefore, is meaningless and beyond ignorant. Laws can and have been changed, just as words and concepts are being redefined.
When your moral compass is set according to the changing whims of society, anything goes. It’s just a matter of time.
You agree what’s legally/illegally isn’t always in order with what’s right/wrong and that words and concepts change. Well then, what’s your argument against redefinition? Do you have a legitimate one that isn’t based in religion (we know religious basis isn’t enough to pass laws) and doesn’t involve changing the subject (your argument is tantamount to arguing that dogs and children might soon vote if women are afforded that right)?
My moral compass is set according to my interpretations of the Bible, my life experiences, my native spirituality and most importantly because I model my life after the teachings of Christ which was all about love.
Thank you for sharing and admitting that you’re looking at this from a religious perspective. Clearly, this is not the false choice of “religious” vs. “secular” that fwteagles vainly attempts to paint below. It is a choice of which religious worldview do we as Americans allow to mold our culture.
Once the proponents of “gay marriage” admit that as a whole, they’ll have gained a shred of credibility.
And it used to be illegal for women to be the sole owner of property, for women, men who did not own property, blacks and Native Americans to vote, for people to marry outside their race, possess or consume alcohol, to teach certain races of people to read and write, to go to school with, sit next to, drink from the same water fountain or be served in the same area as white people – all these things are now legal.
Well we redefined voting and the rights of African Americans. No one said dogs could vote or cats( which would make more sense). I think that, if you were educated, your response would be more informed. Many places have and have had SSM and none of them have had the problems you are raising. Please inform yourself before posting. I enjoy intelligent banter not ridiculous rhetoric.
You say polygamy is not the topic at hand. You’re right about that. But what the poster is saying is that if state endorsement of love relationships is merely about fostering these relationships, then why not have the state endorse all relationships regardless of the number of people involved in each relationship? Can you answer that question?
Easy. Homosexuals are, by nature, not attracted to persons of the opposite gender. Yet, they (we) want to be able to enjoy the same marriage rights that straight people do. The discussion of extending these rights is a single issue, not a slippery slope.
I don’t understand polygamy, so I don’t really have a horse in that race. If I had to argue against it, I would say that it strikes me as a potential legal nightmare with divorce proceedings. Additionally, I don’t get why they want multiple wives. What’s that all about and why should the state sanction it?
But don’t take me to task on that, as I have no strong feelings on the topic and could be swayed one way or the other with more facts presented. If there was a vote on polygamous marriage today, I would leave it blank.
So by not voting you are denying the third party to marry the ones’s they love. Why are you so full of hate towards that third party? Bigot!
You’re kdding, right? You must be, otherwise your post makes zero sense as a reply to what I wrote.
Being neutral on a topic is quite different from actively opposing it.
Not kidding at all. Using your own logic you are indeed a bigot.
You really need to revisit the definition of “bigot”. Being neutral on a topic doesn’t qualify. I would be very open to exploring the pros and cons of polygamy, should the need arise to be more informed about the subject. It just hasn’t.
There are many groups of people who don’t interest me. That does not make me a bigot. It makes them uninteresting (to me).
I am familiar with the term. Homosexuals have thrown it out there so much in their attempt to intimidate and shout people down that I believe they have lost its true meaning. As a whole they are in fact more bigoted than any other group in our society. For you to fight for what you consider your “right” but make the claim that you have no opinion on polygamy is disingenuous at best. You actually don’t care about that third or fourth person wanting to marry the one they love? Talk about hypocrisy.
“As a whole they are in fact more bigoted than any other group in our society.”
I actually find Christians to be the most bigoted group in our society.
Why is my lack of interest in polygamy disingenuous? It’s only being brought up by opponents of SSN trying to create a “slippery slope”. I don’t recall any effort on the behalf of polygamists to try to get on the ballot.
Jeeze, let it go.
Why do you have such a hard time focusing on the topic at hand? You can’t argue successfully against marriage equality for gays, so you take it down some other road. You people really do sound desperate at times.
Its disingenuous because you know as well as I that there will be no reason to not allow it. Its inevitable. History has shown that normalizing one more immorality will only open the door to the next one. Its not another road as you say, but rather the same old road. You are the desperate one not me.
Ahh, you’ve trotted out “immorality”. The road you take this down is one of arrogance.
Actually its you that dragged immorality out of the closet.
Again, your prejudiced colors are showing. It comes down to your side’s ideas of morals and at the end of the day, you really have no other leg to stand on in your fight against marriage equality for gays. Logic goes out the window.
Societies evolve and bigots get left in history’s dust bin. Such is the case here. Maybe not this time around or the next, but it will happen.
I don’t need another leg to stand on. Immorality has never ever benefited society in any way.
What’s immoral in this case? Gay marriage? How, in real terms, does it hurt society? And again, I’ll encourage you to look at examples of places where it’s legal and find how their societies have been harmed. I’ll bet you can’t. It just boils down to your crowd not liking it, so you call it immoral to somehow validate your prejudice.
Good points. These are efforts to distract people from the real issue, like when Santorum compares homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia. Not the same thing and not the same issue.
When people are legitimately talking about polygamy being legalized, then that’s when we should discuss it. In the meantime, the issue at hand is allowing people like me to marry the person he or she loves. THAT is what’s on the ballot this fall.
You stated homosexuals by nature are not attracted to persons of the opposite sex. That’s not exactly true. Many homosexuals are attracted to OS members.
So what about all this attraction of human beings to one another? Well, for one, there is in everyone one a need to be accepted. That need is very fundamental. When it is thwarted by rejection, for example, it may lead to sexual attractions later on in life that likely would not have occurred otherwise. Since children are particularly more vulnerable to the effects of rejection, they are more likely than adults to develop SS attractions and some other forms of disorder. No, there is little if any evidence of genetic or natural causes or correlations to SS attractions. The quest for these causes or correlations has all but been abandoned after decades of and millions of dollars spent in annual funding of this type of research. The more likely cause of SSA is environmental, not natural.
Many BIsexuals are attracted to OS members. It’s the very definition of the word.
The cause of homosexuality remains a mystery. Each side will latch onto a theory or idea to help bolster their position on the topic. But as a gay person, I assure you…homosexuality just is. And I care less about why it is, and more about how I’m treated by society.
I can understand why anyone would not want to be mistreated. I faced severe bullying during my high school years that greatly impacted my life for a decade. The bullying was not caused by anything I did. I was small then and obviously perceived as very vulnerable by a two students in particular whom I suspect were bullied at home by their dads. Fortunately I grew much bigger in stature before I graduated, and the bullying stopped but not without the impact of serious emotional scars.
SSA attraction is very difficult to overcome if at all. This is especially true after one has become sexually active with one or more partners because sex is very addictive by nature. Because of social stigma or religious reasons, some people with SSA simply choose not to be sexually active. They have a social life like other single people and appear to be a happy. But becoming single, especially after having had a sex partner for a while, can be a challenge for many people. It usually takes time to understand one can be happy without the need for another. It takes time to understand that one’s state of happiness is really almost entirely from within and not from without. It’s a bit like learning to take verbal assaults from others. Since we can’t always control this situation, we can learn to adapt to them with time. It all about learning to trust ourselves, and, yes, God too, who is within us.
One final thing: Suppose the state does endorse SS unions in the near future and you end up by marrying. Do you really think it will have a lasting and satisfying impact on your future? Will it lead to greater and more lasting happiness? This is a bit like thinking and imagining how happy we could be if only we could obtain a certain desired status or own a particular object of fancy like a 4-wheeler. Once the status or object is attained, we start to feel a bit disappointed after a while. The goal doesn’t seem to have delivered on its apparent promise of greater “success” or happiness. That’s because the source of our happiness stems much more from within than from without.
As far as marital happiness goes, one doesn’t know until one gets married. Here’s hoping we can all be happy on this Valentine’s Day :)
By the way, the cause of SSA is not a complete mystery. There have been many anecdotal studies leading to much understanding of the dynamics in play. Scientific surveys of large populations on the other hand have been few and far in between and tend to be very costly. The dynamics involved in evolving preferences like SSA and BSA are just too complex for scientific surveys that are only useful when applied to simple, quantifiable, and isolatable behaviors. I have two cousins who are gay. There is no doubt among the relatives how their SSA evolved.
Enlighten us how straight kids are turned gay. Tell me what likely made me gay. Tell me what likely made my boyfriend gay (and not our brothers).
I think they would be considered bisexual.
The term bisexual is just a category or classification if you will. In some cases women, once attracted to males only, became attracted to females or a particular female after having gone through one or more abusive relationships with a male. They look for acceptance and find it in another female. This doesn’t necessarily mean however she no longer has an OS attraction. She may or may not retain that attraction. So how would you classify her? Bisexual, if she has an attraction to both genders, or homosexual, otherwise.
Not relevant. Choices are given legal protections all the time. Notice the freedom to choose a religion?
Gay relationships are legal, incestuous or polygamous relationships are against the law.
There are polygamists trying to change that as we speak using the very same arguments as homosexuals….word for word.
Those against gay marriage are using the arguments that those against interracial marriage were using, word for word.
How do you explain the fact that ninety percent of the black vote was against homosexual marriage in California. Do you think they missed the part about slavery and interacial marriage? Should we tell them?
Reference please.
Google it. You will get hundreds of hits. Then come back and explain it to me.
That’s always a good line for someone who doesn’t have hard evidence from unnbias sources.
Thats precisely why I suggested you google it. That way you wouldn’t be able to come back and say I picked a biased site. So lets try it again. Google it, you will get numerous hits. Pick the one you like and come back and explain it to me. Don’t let the facts hit you in the derriere.
Not relevant. You’re changing the subject again. Whether they’re against it or not, it remains that the same arguments against interracial marriage are being used against gay marriage. That is factually true.
Did you see the engagement announcement in the weekend paper of that beautiful young white woman and that handsome young black man? We’ve come a long way.
Indeed we have come a long way. Many miles to go, though.
I wonder why it is so important for two people in love to have their love relationship endorsed by the state. Really, it should not make any difference if the endorsement is merely about fostering relationships of love. To society it doesn’t really matter if a relationship of love lasts only two months or a lifetime unless, that is, the possibility exists for the partners to become natural parents, grandparents, or adoptive parents resembling natural ones.
Mainers have had no decision on whether to allow gays to adopt. That decision was imposed by the court system. So far Mainers have tolerated this situation. Now they are being asked to go another step further by endorsing SS relationships for the sake of their adopted children. Somewhere a line has to be drawn on just how far we are willing to extend benefits to others and use society as a lab for experimentation that could have enormous unintended consequences, just as the concept of consensual sex in the 60’s had on society.
Try taking away the financial benefits of being married and see what sort of an uproar there would be. And what’s with the “adoptive parents resembling natural ones” dig?
Historically adoption by OS parents has been socially accepted. Children had an opportunity to have the good parents they lost, or never had, replaced by a mom and a dad. It was not the ideal situation for them but it was nonetheless the best one available where the parents naturally complemented each other physically, mentally, and emotionally. Certainly it didn’t create the gender identity problems we are now seeing in some cases where the adoptive parents are both moms or both dads.
Unless you were adopted, you really can’t speak on behalf of what adopted children need or want.
That’s making an AWFUL lot of assumptions.
Assumption: the “original” parents were better than the “replacement” parents.
Assumption: either set of parents always “naturally” complement each other in any way.
Assumption: that any set of OS parents is always better in every way than a set of SS parents
Assumption: that children in SS households grow up in a bubble isolated from any exposure to figures who are of the opposite gender of the parents.
Assumption: that to solve this supposed gender identity problem, a child should be in an OS household.
Assumption: kids are stupid
Factually untrue. The issue was raised at length in the Prop. 8 cases and all studies and experts (even on the side of those wishing to keep Prop 8 in place) stated explicitly that same-sex and adoptive parents are just as capable and in fact do raise children just as effectively as opposite sex “natural” parents.
Thank you for correcting him but I am not sure he is worth the time. it is obvious he is ignorant and i doubt too many listen to him.
Not absolutely true. I (a single parent) adopted my first child (who was age 12) when I was 23. He had some serious issues with females, having been abused by two of them when he was under 5. He had been through seven “mommy and Daddy” foster homes, and had blown most of them out of the water. He stayed with me until he was 19, and then joined the Marines where he served 22 years,
Any “gender identity problems” this young man may have had were created in OS foster homes. ALSO as a child care worker I never saw any of the “gender identity problems you mention.
Gender identity problems more likely occur when a young lass is adopted and raised by two “dads” or when a young lad is adopted and raised by two “moms”. Foster homes are not an ideal situation for abandoned kids when they know it is a temporary abode for them or suspect parents are not fully committed to them. Unfortunately many parents are not well prepared to raise children because they themselves are products of broken homes, drug and alcohol abuse, or are simply too busy to raise children – caught up pursing their own dreams, that is. Much of the maladjusted folks we see today are the product of an era beginning in the 60’s when the idea of “free” or consensual sex grew in acceptance. Society has since paid a big price for this development of which there seemingly is no end in sight.
How do you know this about gender identity problems? And just what IS a “gender identity problem”? A boy who wants to cook? A girl who wants to fix a flat tire? Or a boy who cries? Or a girl who doesn’t let men boss her around? What do you mean?
As for maladjusted people, haven’t there always been maladjusted people? I cannot believe that pre-1965 everyone was happy in their tight, little conformist roles. Maybe there’s less stigma now for seeking help for one’s maladjustment than there was in 1957.
He obviously never saw “Valley of the Dolls” “Blackboard Jungle” “Rebel Without a Cause” or “Reefer Madness.” (all pre 1965.)
Good point!
I love “Valley of the Dolls”!
your facts are completely incorrect. please give you sources. why arent these problems found in the Netherlands where SSM has been legal for 11 years?
OMG OMG OMG>>>>>seriously. Gender identity problems are predominantly found in heterosexual homes!!!! LMAO you really are ignorant.
I’m so pleased to finally learn that my familial relationships are socially acceptable. My parents also will be thrilled to learn that they were “complementary” if less than ideal. whawell, you’ve really made my day.
Interesting group of letters today. Should be some interesting comments. Keep it nice, everyone.
Fat chance of that happening.
EJP I think you have more class then that? Why did you have to add the last sentence?
Because when subjects like those in some of the letters come up, the gloves come off. It’s just the way it is on here. But, I was nice enough not to make any direct comments.
But, you quote Christian values but then not follow them. Please decide where you stand or you will fall.
Sorry, but you lost me there. Even Christ had a streak of sarcasm.
My Jewish history professor used to quip”
“Christianity is a beautiful religion…too bad no one ever practiced it.”
Robert O’brien. Take the “maybe” out of your sentence and I bet you are spot on. Now I don’t know much about Naval subjects, GO ARMY! , but certainly one Fleet in todays Navy DOES have more firepower than the 1917 navies of the countries you mentioned. Just a few planes could sink many many ships from past fleets and those ships would never even see the planes that were attacking them.
When I joined the United States Navy in 1958 there were about 750 ships, now there are about 300, BUT you are absolutely right about firepower being greater now. The ships there when I joined were mostly leftovers from World War II, and really needed to be replaced, they had earned it. Thanks for providing the insight.
I know that it’s very late on this post to be commenting so you probably won’t see it. Anyhoo, There is no way that I would ever join the Navy, especially if I had to be out on the ocean. All that water scares the hell out of me. I need to keep my feet firmly on the ground. oh i’ve been on tons of helicopters but that was to go from one place on the ground to another.
Thanks for your service Larry.
David Dean
Those promoting socialism really hate it when people ask questions like you did.
I doubt anyone would be promoting socialism, were it not for all the people promoting greed. When the final chapter is written about America, it will say that we imploded from within. And greed will have been the catalyst.
You actually have the cause of our downfall correct. Greed. It’s too bad that you do not recognize who that label really should apply to and who is bringing America down.
And who would that be?
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
―
Alexis de Tocqueville,
Democracy in America
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes
for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury
with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal
policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the
world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
―
Alexis de Tocqueville
“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”
―
Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
–Benjamin franklin
You figure it out….
Somebody has found the page of de Tocqueville quotes.
You should think about reading him.
You might learn something. Of course, first you have to open your mind.
I have some other people I could suggest as good reading material as well.
“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts
it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes
each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have
nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference:
while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in
restraint and servitude.”
―
Alexis de Tocqueville
I’d like to refer Ms. Cook to Rep Rotundo’s letter. In addition, I would hope that Landslide LePage has a very good insurance plan because from the looks of him he is a very good candidate for Type II diabetes. Oh yea, I forgot he probably gets his insurance from the state and it is paid for by the taxpayer so it is probably the best money can buy.
John, very weak argument. Denied.
When someone asks why not incestual marriage, why not a beastiality marriage — they’re trying to derail the conversation and make you talk about something else.
When someone proposes a new law about allowing guns in national parks, you don’t force them to explicitly answer why not guns in malls, why not guns on airplanes, why not guns on the moon. That is changing the issue.
Further, if you’re going to force those working towards marriage rights for gay people to answer those questions, you have to answer the questions yourself. Why not gays specifically? You don’t get to claim because it has always been man and woman. It has always been man and maybe a few women or man owning a woman and specifically they ought to be both of the same race. You have to answer why those alterations were permissible.
You also have to answer why the anti-gay legislation ONLY focuses on gay people in their legislative history. Why wasn’t a polygamist included in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Why weren’t spooky tales of “they’ll teach beastiality in school!” advertisements played by the Yes on 1 camp?
Yes, they can’t understand that the incest, polygamy and bestiality is against the law. Homosexuality is not against the law.
If the law is the only thing holding you back, you too have some disturbing issue’s.
Care to address my questions?
Why are you derailing the conversation? Why does multiple irrelevant issues have to be addressed in order to move forward? I notice this doesn’t happen with other discussions (re: my gun rights example). Why are you forcing those issues to be addressed, but they were never addressed in removing rights of gays (re: DADT, why only gays here speficially and not polygamists?)? Why specifically the one man on woman definition when historically that was not the case? Why were the other alterations permissable (ex. interracial marriage) but not this one?
I’m not gay or lesbian. I merely love our constitution, the foundation that this country was built on and the idea that we are free in this country to live by our own religious beliefs or none at all, not by what others dictate.
You didn’t respond to my post. if the “law” is the only thing holding you have serious issue’s.
Obviously I don’t support incest or bestiality but I have not made a final opinion on polygamy. Some believe that they are called by God to be in that relationship because there were many such relationships in the Bible.
And why don’t you support incest or bestiality?
i am sure your words are not from a good Christian. now i understand exactly who you are. if you are not against homosexuals because you are Christian (because you are not) and you are not against us because the Bible says so (because you dont follow that either) than you must be one of us. Welcome, the closet opens to the left.
Huh???
Who are you to decide who is a “good” Christian or not? Quite prideful of you to claim to know God’s thoughts.
Its just deviant abnormal behaviour. You want to tolerate it, promote and sanction it knock yourselves out but it doesn’t make it any less deviant.
Please provide me proof that it is deviant. You are just stating your opinion so I would like to see the proof for myself.
Well in a earlier post you “claimed” to follow the teachings of Jesus which are found in the Bible. Read the book of Romans chapter one. God clearly states he gave them over to a depraved mind to do what is improper.
I read the four Gospels which give a very good blueprint for how to best experience this human journey. Beyond that is merely human’s interpretation of Christ’s message and the history of the Christian church. Revelations actually cracks me up…talk about an acid trip. No doubt drugs were involved in the writing of that book.
So you have decided the four Gospels are very good and not subject to man’s interpretation. Is that what you’re saying? How did this revelation come about? Would you care to discuss this just using the four Gospels then as our guide?
No one needs more than they four gospels to understand the teachings of Christ.
You avoided all of my questions! Why?
Prove to me that anal sex between men is normally acceptable by social standards
Prove to me that premarital sex or divorce is normally acceptable by social standards.
You mean it isn’t? Where are you from?
Homosexuality is normally accepted by social standards in the same way that having premarital sex and divorce is within our society.
Well all three are wrong, so you have that part right.
One’s opinion based on his interpretation of the Bible does not make it so for the entire country.
not all men have anal sex. so are they ok if they dont?
No.
CP4 is what terrorists use to blow up planes. Is there something we should know C3PO?
When all else fails that is what you resort to? Your true colors are showing. Sad.
Yawn.
Next?
Oh, Lord. The “anal-sex” argument. As if straight people don’t do ALL the things gay men do. But sodomy is okay if it’s between a man and a woman. I guess like marriage, huh?
That’s really just an opinion. I can say that it isn’t. Now where are we?
John Westcott–and your point is?
I tend to believe Nancy Cook’s numbers over Rep. Peggy Rotundo’s, even though Peggy touts years of service on the Appropriations Committee–guess the latter has misread the numbers.
Let’s see someone who deals with the actual facts of the matter on a daily basis and has comprehensive knowledge of the issue at hand should not be believed, but someone who admires Mr. LePage and thinks he is doing a good job should be as she regurgitates his talking points?
Ms. Rotundo explains pretty clearly what has happened with MaineCare and the facts actually support what she has said. MaineCare is not responsible, as the Governor and Ms. Cook would have you believe, for the DPHHS shortfall. Funding for it has been flat since 2006 and while enrollment has increased due to the recession, the cost of the program has increased only 10% while health care costs have doubled.
Ms. Cook seems to think that there is something fishy with the idea of enrollment increasing even though there has not been a comparable increase in people moving into the state. She is falling for the laughable, but oft-quoted, assumption that people come to Maine to get its lavish welfare bennies. Apparently, it defies her logic that people within the state might be in need of health insurance, especially those who have lost work and with it, health insurance; or that those individuals moved into it from another program so that they can benefit from prescription drug coverage may play a role in the increase in growth.
Mr. LePage is making cuts on the backs of people who cannot live without health care and medication. He is, in essence, insuring that hospital emergency rooms and prisons will be the safety net for those who disabled, elderly and mentally ill are left out in the cold. This will not, in the end, reduce costs for the state.
Unlike Ms. Cook, I do not think the governor takes any of this to heart. He does not seem at all mired in moral quandary over the issue of real people being cut off from life sustaining treatment or medication, just because they do not have children at home; instead he seems to relish it. He is quite clear in his motivations. He believes that government is an adjunct to business, thus, business alone should benefit from government assistance. As he did last year vis a vis state workers, he is lying about the facts to his base to rile them up against those who receive health insurance through MaineCare.
Wanna buy a bridge?
The 3,000 year old idea of Jewish “marriage” included multiple wives. Abraham had two wives, marrying the second one because Sarah was thought to be barren. Abraham took her Egyptian handmaiden, Hagar, as a second wife. Hagar bore Ishmael, who was Abraham’s first son. As a surprise to all, Sarah then presented Abraham with his second son Issac. Making Abraham father of both the Jewish and Muslim faiths.
John Wescott,
Marriage is not a piece of paper, it is between one man, one woman, and God. Let the secularists have their state-mandated “gay marriage” because it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t hurt you or your salvation. Warn them, but don’t keep it from them. If they want to sin, let them sin. They have free will, just as you do.
Better yet, get the State out of the marriage business all together. They sold the liquor business, maybe they can get money for the marriage business too.
Yes, let’s spend more money trying to disentangle the over 1,000 laws benefiting married people so that only the church can marry people? What happens to straight couples who do not want to marry in the church? Let’s see how many people are ok with taking away inheritance rights, visitation rights, asset transferring rights, etc.
Why not just allow all consenting adults to marry whomever they choose, thus bringing in more money to the coffers of both the state and private businesses. I know local florists would love one or two more jobs, so too would inn keepers like to rent more rooms, restaurants would love one or two more private parties celebrating engagements and marriages.
You think this is about money? Could you possibly be any shallower?
Good grief.
He is pointing out an economic benefit.
Disentangle 1000 laws? hell yes. I’ll just bet that a majority would love to see fewer laws.
BUT
I said nothing about changing or removing the idea of marriage. I said get the State out of the marriage business. let churches marry whom they wish, and start a chain of small business “marriage brokers” where the unchurched can go and “register” their union.
On the economic side this would start a whole new field of private business, create jobs, and maybe even take some of the boards off the windows of the closed downtown stores.
WHAT?!?!?! Is this what it’s aboot!??! MONEY!??!?! All you liberals all want your money at the expense of my religious freedom!!!!
Although I sit on a different side of this issue than you as far as whether or not it is a sin I think your standpoint is a much more Christian approach than many. Thank you for that.
For religious people it is between one man, one woman, and God. But thankfully we live in a country where we are free to pursue or reject religion. The forefathers were very smart when they built the foundation of this country. We do not all live by the same belief systems nor are we required to.
As I read it, if one lives by the Bible, it is a sin to claim that someone else is a sinner because that in itself a sin. Work on the log in your eye, before trying to take a splinter from another’s.
Actually, if the Bible proclaims something to be a sin, it is our duty as Christians to point out that sin to those that are sinning. To not inform others would be more of a sin than remaining quiet and allowing them to continue in their sin.
You are correct. Do you walk up to people who eat shellfish, wear different cloth, lie, adulterers, fornicators, etc and inform them? Also, it says that you are not supposed to be negative against them or try to stop them. you are only supposed to inform them. You have. Please move on.
You are ignorant of scripture. I don’t mean to sound rude, and no I don’t hate you.
I dont think you hate me…..I am not ignorant.
I wish people would get off the shellfish issue. Food restrictions were lifted in the New Testament. And although I consider shellfish to be nothing more than overgrown cockroaches, I wouldn’t stop anyone from eating them.
I don’t care what other people wear. And I don’t seek out liars, adulterers, fornicators, slanderers, murderers, or homosexuals. I do get involved in conversations from time to time, but I try to remain respectful. Sometimes my passion for a subject is misinterpreted as something other than it was intended, but that’s on the one interpreting. My words are very often twisted to the extreme for no other reason than to incite an argument. And many times, as you know, things that I have NOT said or even insinuated are attached to my name. But, that’s the way the game is played. I try not to get upset. Sometimes I do. I’m human, after all.
Interesting that you want me to move on. So many have already moved on because they’ve been beat down by the other side over and over and over again. And that’s a shame. I, on the other hand, am only expressing my opinions and beliefs. I do not condemn, nor do I condone. I stand my ground. And I expect others to do the same.
“I do get involved in conversations ”
I’ll bet you do!!!!!
we are just trying to show that the Bible cannot be taken word for word. even in the new testament there are so many things that are contradictory. the Bible only declared homosexuality wrong because the tribes of Isreal were trying to build. it is the same reason they didnt want to masterbate etc.
You really need to study the Bible if you’re going to use it as proof or support. Either that, or your version of the Bible has been completely changed from the KJV.
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:32)
Thus we have redefined marriage by allowing divorced people re marry.
I’m curious to know how does EJ determine that someone is a fornicator,an abominator or an adulterer? Does he have a little question sheet he passes out, does he just come right out and ask them, does he sneak around at night watching in the window?
I have never heard any reply to that. It’s always just “GAY IS BAD” (or worse) and that’s it…
People eating shellfish (not immoral) wear different cloth (if you knew the bible, its not about the cloth) lie, adulterers, fornicators etc are not trying to redefine marriage based on their immoral lifestyle nor are they trying to normalize it. Huge difference
actually according to the Bible they are redefining marriage as the Bible says adulterers cannot marry. anyway, i am in a monogamous loving relationship. myself and my partner work full time in professional positions. we do not break the law. however, if you choose to believe the Bible, word for word, please do so. If you do, we should not be hearing from you again. god bless you. however, if you do not follow the Bible word for word we will be hearing form you over and over.
What in the world are you talking about?
I think she’s got a very strange version of the Bible. It’s not a KJV, NKJV, NIV, American Standard, or any other version that I’m familiar with.
But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matt. 5:32)
This shows that the BIble does not allow remarriage. Thus, those who divorce and remarry are redefining marriage.
That is disobedience to God just as practicing homosexuals are being disobedient to God. Trying to change marriage from a man and woman to two of the same sex is a redefinition. Altogether different.
ok
I”m quite sure you won’t find it in your local Christian bookstore.
It’s a good thing for you that most of us in western culture also observe some measure of common curtesy, mind their own business and thus save you the burden of listening to a rather long list of sins.
That would be courtesy, and I’m not a priest.
So please EJ stop judging other’s lives and deciding if they are sinning or not. Leave the judgement up to God as Jesus commanded.
In many cases, such as homosexuality, abortion, slander, idols, adultery, etc., God as already made the judgment. Christians are just His messengers.
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
Anne Lamott quotes (American best-selling author)
Ceegan: History quite clearly indicates that marriage was first invented for the purpose of safeguarding or enhancing assets and had nothing to do with God. Marriage was a financial arrangement between two wealthy families and usually the male and female involved had very little to say about the union. God was an after thought, brought in only to sprinkle holy water on a financial transaction so the kids couldn’t squirm out of it. Marriage as a universally accepted sacrament has only been around for about 6oo years. It’s not written in stone any where as is “mind your own business”.
The first marriage was in the Garden of Eden. That is, of course, if one believes in God.
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it
turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
Anne Lamott quotes (American best-selling author)
How did those first two humans have children? And who did their son marry so that he could have children?
And those of us who belong to a more progressive Christian church will still have our marriage before God.
We all win!
The one big problem with modern-day progressive churches is that Jesus is still standing outside knocking on the door. No one will let him in. And without Jesus, there are no winners.
That pretty much sums up evangelical/conservative churches. They talk the talk but not walk the walk and leave Jesus outside the door.
So you are infamous for talking about not judging. Does this not apply to you, or is it just good advice for everyone else?
Not a judgement, just an observation.
Of course, in typical liberal fashion. When you judge its an observation, I think I got it.
Your deflection abilities are remarkable.
ok
ok
Really? Is this now a pi**ing match about which Christian church is more Christian? Really?
No. If a church doesn’t put Christ first, then it should not wave the Christian banner. Take the UU church for instance. The UU church accepts everyone, no matter what, and rarely mentions the name of Christ, let alone preaching from the Bible or offering salvation through His shed blood.
And that’s just one example. Westboro Baptist is another. And the list goes on.
Does the UU declare itself a Christian church?
But it really does sound like you’re saying that your church is more Christian than mine or that of anyone else if they don’t follow His teachings like yours does. That sounds like a pi**ing match match to me.
Isn’t there freedom of religion in this country? Or is it only, as I heard one TEA party member say on the news once recently, freedom to be a Christian? (And then only the RIGHT Christian…)
….
MaineCare Facts should more appropriately be titled “Selective MaineCare Facts Designed to Promote an Agenda”.
“MaineCare is a health care program, not a welfare service.”
MaineCare is a health insurance program, the majority of which is paid for by taxpayers. Recipients pay very little, or nothing, for this program. The program is in place to provide for the general health welfare of the poor, elderly and disabled. Maybe Ms. Rotundo doesn’t want that to be defined as welfare, but it seems to me logical enough to call a program of this nature welfare. When one segment of society pays out of pocket for a service, and another gets their service paid for by the tax payer funded state, then it is a welfare program.
After all, food assistance could also be considered a health program–who could live long and well without food? But it is still welfare.
“Since 2006, the total funding for the MaineCare program has been largely
flat despite a growth in enrollment and growth in the cost of health
care. The cost of the program has increased by less than 10 percent in
the last six years, while health care costs have grown at double the
rate.”
This is a feat unparalleled in history. Flat funding growth despite increased enrollment and costs? Does this make any sense? Perhaps if Ms. Rotundo would share a few more facts, we could all see how this patently impossible assertion can be made. She should share the fact that the state simply didn’t pay for the services it provided (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars), ergo no need for more funding. If I didn’t pay my bills, I wouldn’t need any more income either…
Ms. Rotundo should also consider sharing the facts surrounding how much money Maine received from the Federal government in the past few years, versus how much Maine will receive this year.
“The shortfall in DHHS was not caused by an increase of enrollment on the
program. The cost of enrollment growth accounts for only 6.5 percent of
the total projected shortfall.”
Notice how carefully this is worded. If one weren’t paying attention, one might assume that that the total cost of MaineCare is only accounting for a single-digit percent of the shortfall. But Ms. Rotundo is only talking about the expected increase in enrollment’s role in the shortfall. What about the current expenses in MaineCare, and the past unpaid liabilities in MaineCare?? What percent do they constitute in the current shortfall? That would be an interesting fact to know, Ms. Rotundo.
And, logically, if the expected increase in enrollment is causing a 6.5% shortfall this year, then isn’t it clear that the program is not funded 100%? Wait–I think I will call my oil company and tell them I will use 6.5% more oil next month, but I won’t pay for it….They won’t mind, right?
Under your definition public education is ‘WELFARE so are public roads, municipal projects (which do not benefit everyone) sewer systems (not everyone uses them equally) trash pick-up (some families have more trash than others) and our court system, which despite the amount of money it takes in, it caan’t pay for itself. Of course our police and fire departments are welfare (over the course of my life I have needed neither, however I still must pay for them.
Now personally I like the idea of anarchy, but I’m aware it is not popular. If you are a fellow anarchist please give me your e-mail. we’ll start a (very small) club. otherwise, tell me where the line between socialism and realistic capitalism lies.
Nice try, but I respectfully disagree. The items you cite as falling into my definition of welfare are items that are used by all of society freely, and are inherently impossible, or unrealistic to maintain as a private concern. Individuals can not pay directly to build a road for their private use so they could get from Bangor to Portland. Municipal projects fall under the same. Trash pickup is a service voted on by individual municipalities and not everyone everywhere gets trash pickup for free. The town I lived in in NH did not have free trash pickup–individuals had to pay a trash company, or go to the dump on their own, And yes, if the government funded a program to pay for people in that town to get their trash picked up, who could not afford to pay on their own, then that would fall into welfare. Police and fire departments a personnel paid for by the taxpayers to perform a service.
Welfare involves the government procuring of a service or commodity for an individual who cannot afford to otherwise pay for said service or item. This service or commodity is something that is bought and paid for by other citizens, who have the means to do so. Some people pay for health insurance. Some people have the state pay for it with taxpayer dollars. Some people pay for their food, clothes, heating fuel, rent, childcare etc.. and some people use government funds to pay for these things. It’s welfare, and if that term makes people feel that there is something wrong with what they receive, that is between them and their conscience. The definition stands.
Public education may certainly fall under the term of welfare, except that its widespread acceptance by the majority of society tends to minimalize the connection. But, I suppose some people with means do pay for education, while those without means rely on state funded schools. A hundred years ago, there were “charity” schools.
You say:
“Welfare involves the government procuring of a service or commodity for
an individual who cannot afford to otherwise pay for said service or
item.”
But you also said:
Individuals can not pay directly to build a road for their private use so they could get from Bangor to Portland.
Actually Long Island’s (New York) Motor Parkway was built totally with private money by the Vanderbilts, The Rockefellers , and other wealthy families. They tolled the road, and charged the “public” a buck to use it. Just because you can’t afford a road doesn’t mean it is not affordable.
Any government service or item that is paid for by all, but not used by some of those forced to pay for that service or item is welfare
Which is exactly what you said.
I am not saying that private money could not build a road. I am saying a single individual could not build a road for his use only. Even if one could afford to build a road for his own use, it would not be possible to have 100 super wealthy people each build a road from Bangor to Portland for his private use only. Sure, private money can build a road, and then charge a toll when people use it. But this still involves getting right of ways through state and local governments. Compare that to a health insurance plan. I can buy my own health coverage and it covers me. Someone else does not pay for a plan, but he gets coverage, because the state pays for his premium. That is a welfare program. I go to the grocery store and buy canned peaches. Someone else goes to the store and gets canned peaches, but the state pays for it. That is welfare.
There is nothing wrong with welfare, if you are in need.
You put your garbage on the side of the road for town pick up. I put my garbage on the side of the road for town pick up. I have 1 pound of garbage, you have 50 pounds of garbage we both pay the same amount in taxes.
Welfare?
I never use Mass transportation, you commute by mass transit every day. we both must pay through taxes (mass transit is subsidized) , you pay additional because you use the service.
Welfare?
I never use the fire department. you own a blueberry field and have the fire department out to quell fires once every five years when you lose control of the burn.
Welfare?
I have no children in the local school. No children from my house have gone to public school in Maine. BUT I must still pay for the children in your family, even if you live in a slum and pay 1/2 or 1/4 the taxes I pay…
Welfare?
You have your view, and I don’t intend to attempt to change it, but one could make the same argument you make above in favor of giving people checks. Capitalism requires a pool of unemployed workers to make that economic system work effectively. Should these unemployed families be subsidized by the rest of us? Or should we find and use another economic system?
“If in a family setting same sex parents care for children it would be
less confusing, more honest, if those children know you to be not
married like men and women but different with your own relationship and
name for it. ”
Mr. Wescott, it so happens that I have been married for over 20 years. It’s my and my spouse’s only marriage. Perhaps in a divorced and “re-married” family setting with children, those adulterous couples could just come up with a term that is more honest for the children such as “we took vows and then broke them, so we are taking them again, and who knows how this will go?” After all, such people are not married like my spouse and I are married….
Wait. I have a better idea. How about we all just mind our own business and let consenting adults conduct their relationships as they wish, and call it what they wish? And, if the state offers some type of benefit based on the relationship, then the state must offer those benefits to all of those relationships, regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. Sounds good to me.
Let’s “all just mind our own business and let consenting adults conduct their relationships as they wish.”
Sounds so simple.
Tell that to many children from broken homes. Tell them about “consensual sex”, or “sex without any consequences just as long as your spouse doesn’t find out.”
How about putting children first for a change. How about sending the signal we are serious about making sure children are raised in a loving and nurturing environment with the mom and dad nature gave them instead of creating artificial families through artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, and surrogacy, where at least one natural parent is divorced from them? How about making sure, when without parents, children are adopted by loving OS parents committed to each other in a loving bond rather than SS couples who do not mirror the loving OS parents they either lost or never had. This should be the goal of society for future generations, not encouraging relationships of mere convenience at the expense of children.
I don’t see that the only nurturing environment out there is with a man and a woman. I see no reason why a same sex couple would be any less nurturing to a child.
All I would like to see, as far as children go, is that every child is loved and cared for. And I don’t care who does the loving and caring–it can be an OS couple, a SS couple, a single parent of either sex. Just make sure the child is fed, clothed, talked to, respected, loved.
Doesn’t matter. The most nurturing and loving gay couple is WORSE than the most violent and abusive straight couple, it seems.
How about those couples, gay and straight, that DON’T WANT CHILDREN. It’s NOT all about the children. It’s also about ALL Americans.
I don’t want children, but I want to marry my man.
Very simple to marry your man. The gay community just needs to create it’s own marriage ceremony, if having your love relationships endorsed is so important. Most people however see these relationships as immoral and don’t want the court system to force schools to teach kids these relationships are acceptable.
please look up Marc Mutty hyperbole on youtube. homosexual marriage will not be taught in schools and the fact that you believed this even though the school administration said it would not makes me believe you are truly one of those ignorant people the media and religious zealots target.
You are the one lying now.
i have nothing to prove. look it up. ps. i am a school teacher, i know what the curriculum tells me to teach, we dont teach anything about marriage. the book that the KKK members children talked about in the commercial has been a round and read in schools for years. just sayn…..all you have to do is look it up or are you scared to realize you are wrong. but, i do know you , i know you and those like you very well. i pray for you.
Looking at your sentence structure, spelling and lack of capitalization I hope you really don’t expect anyone to believe you teach. And enough with the pious “pray for you” already. Just exactly how would you pray? Dear God please let them see that my homosexuality that You consider an abomination would become accepted???
How about praying to God by admitting you got yourself involved in something you know you shouldn’t have and ask Him to help you overcome it. Rather than stumble down that road that leads to death, admit you’re a sinner and give your life over to Jesus forever from this moment on. He CAN change your life!
Ok
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
Anne Lamott quotes (American best-selling author)
How is this a lie? Have you seen the clip? Here it is just in case you haven’t: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADqimp6QU2o
Woah. That tired line. Actually, two tired lines.
Gays can have their own thing for whatever it is they want to do, but it ain’t real marriage. (Ignoring that we already can have a ceremony but such ceremonies don’t provide the same legal protections that are VERY real issues for some Mainers right now).
and…
They’ll teach it in the schools!!! (As if that will happen-“Jimmy-you can now marry the boy sitting next to you!!!” and as if that will “convert” a child to be a gay simply because Bill and Archie down the street were married and they talked about it in school. Keep forcing those kids into the gender-specific roles!!!)
As long as the state recognizes OS marriage and offers certain benefits based on that marital status, then it has to offer the same recognition and benefits to SS couples. If two people commit to each other in a formal ceremony, it is a marriage of the couple. Your desire to not allow them use that word is simply your attempt to foist your disapproval on them. We just don’t get to do that in America. A SS marriage does not affect you in any material way. Having your religious sensibilities affected does not count.
And the school has every right to teach kids what is legal in this country. If SS marriage is legal, then the school can present it that way.
SSM will indeed have a negative impact on future generations of children as I explained in an earlier comment. That fact alone makes it everyone’s business. Don’t forget, when a couple divorces, what is in the best interest of the children is the only criteria used to determine which partner gets custody. It has nothing to do with the issue of fairness. That’s why a cheating spouse often prevails over a loyal spouse in child custody matters.
Concerning your other point: If schools are mandated to teach the normalcy of various family structures – including those with SS couples – to impressionable children, there will no doubt be a public outcry against an unwarranted intrusion on religious family values.
and many studies have been done to protect the children. it has been shown over and over that same sex parents raise healthy children. what if my husband died in the war and my sister moved in to help raise my children? would you protest that too? myself and my partner have 3 wonderful daughters. they have wonderful men in their lives who are there for them as role models. their father has chosen to not be in their lives (long before i ever came out). so you think that my self and my educated professional partner are worse for my children then their deadbeat lazy drug addicted father? Our children always come first…period!
I find it rather odd that you feel the need to constantly say you and your partner are professionals. What exactly does that prove? Are you trying to make the claim that there are no immoral professional people or are you just insecure?
not insecure at all. i am a teacher and i know that it takes educated hard working people to create a healthy society. just letting people know that i am honest and hardworking. it is those who sit at home and do nothing but collect my money who destroy a society. gay people have been around forever adn never have they caused the downfall of a society. they were accepted in many societies and never did they cause a moral problem.
Public policy should not be based on anecdotal evidence like you just presented. That said, I don’t deny some gay couples can do a better job of raising children than some straight couples. And I agree it is usually better as a rule to have family members take over the job of raising when parents are absent for some reason. Taking children away from their relatives, particularly close relatives, can have a devastating effect on them. This however doesn’t take away from the fact society needs to ensure as many children as possible are raised with their natural parents and not in some artificial family construct that nature has not designed.
Let me end my comment with this: The public drive to extend the definition of marriage to establish “equality” is mostly about promoting public acceptance of homosexual partnerships, not about raising children.
Thank you Rep. Rotundo for your clear, concise, and factual elucidation on a subject that has resulted in hair pulling and misery over the past few months.
Is anyone listening? Le Page exhibits his customary crude intolerance, supported by his teapblican allies, who like his preference for ideological radicalism instead of common sense.
Strapped by the tea party-Koch brothers golden chain, just like Wisconsin folk who suffer under tea party Koch brothers supported Gov. Walker. He, however, is being recalled.
Rep. Peggy Rotundo
You’re serious aren’t you?
Lewiston voters;
Next time try someone with some brains, and who doesn’t consider the rest of the state to be without them.
But she has facts to back up her brains. Is that what you are objecting to, the facts? Which facts?
John Wescott – Note forms of “married” in Hebrew:
male : nasui נשוי
female:ne’su’ah נשואה
couple(is):na’sui נשוי
they(are): ne’su’im נשואים
to get married: le’hit’ha’ten להתחתן The homonyms you refer to are english and are a few thousand years newer.
You should also know that polygamy was practiced by Jewish sects back then and still is, to a very small extant, in modern Israel. So is that cool with you?
The Chinese also “invented” marriage around the same time, 2500 years ago. Do you ascribe them some special significance as well?
Marriage is cultural, and varies widely around the world.
Why should I care who you marry? Why would you care who I marry? It isn’t anyone else’s business.
It’s more than just an expression of love, its also about the right to care for a sick partner, or share assets and enjoy the same tax treatment as other couples.
It is about simple fairness.
Ms. Cook – Wanna buy a bridge?
Rep Rotundo fabricated the biggest distortion yet! She’s the one who helped expand Medicaid to over 35% above the national average. If her theory is correct, then why didn’t the other states follow suit and also expand their Medicaid programs? Instead, Maine moved ahead of the pack with a Cadillac Medicaid program. Is the failed national economy only affecting Maine? Apparently so, according to Rep. Rotundo. This is illogical and a clear false argument that is full of holes. Rep Rotondu, what about the other 30% who are on Medicaid? Are these the able bodied individuals who the Maine taxpayer cannot afford? Are these the very ones who should be CUT to protect Medicaid for the 290,000 truly needy?
I encourage the full legislature to send the proposal back to Appropriations and find a REAL solution, one that will fix this issue once and for all. Continually raising taxes and continually cutting education and transportation, like Baldacci did so many times, is not a viable solution.
We’ve got your backs, so please send this failed proposal back to the drawing board.
Actually John Baldacci spent more thanTWICE as much on transportation in his eight years than Angus King spent in his eight years.
I don’t approve of that, BUT it is a fact.
Dear Mr. Wescott: If you would try to think of the human race as “we” instead of as “us” and “them,” you might understand the situation a bit better than you seem to at the moment. Mr. Wescott, we are neighbors and yet, we have never met. My husband and I have lived in the area for 10 years and have been together for over 13 years. If marriage equality passes, and my husband and I are able to purchase a marriage license from the state and enter into the bonds of matrimony, you and I still would not know each other…please tell me how my getting married has any effect at all on you personally? You wouldn’t even know. What is the big deal?
If you are so bent on protecting marriage, why not defend it from divorce? 50% of marriages now end in divorce. My husband and I have been together twice as long as my sister was married to her husband, and just under 13 years longer than Kim Kardashian, whose sham 72 day marriage netted her 10 million dollars.
All I would like to do is marry the one person in the world who gets me completely, the one person who knows ALL of me and my quirks and accepts me for all of who I am. He still makes me smile when he walks into a room. My ideal vacation is anywhere with him…just get us away from our offices and I am happy……What is so different from other marriages?
I think just the fact that SOMEWHERE there is a gay who’s married another person of the same gender is enough to make these people uncomfortable. It’s not about “live and let live,” but about “live the Christian way I see others should be living.” Unfortunately, those with that attitude will make it their personal mission to keep their noses in our business as long as they live. Look at the abortion issue-40 years later and they’re still trying to insert themselves into the lives of strangers.
It doesn’t matter in the least to them the way we feel about that special someone. The fact that someone who is the same sex as we can make us feel the way you’ve described is just wrong. No getting around it. Love and marriage between two dudes or two gals is just plain wrong. Period. And, of course, conversely, no love need be present when a man and a woman marries because the only point of marriage is NOT because of the way the two parties feel about each other. It’s NOT the way their lives are better together than apart. It is ONLY because there is the mere hint or maybe a possibility or even just a suggestion that there might someday, somehow, be a child born due to the sexual intercourse between the two parties. Even if a marriages lasts 72 hours, there is that possibility of conception during that time and thus a baby be produced for the greater good. That’s all marriage is to these people. They’ll never understand.
John Wescott: Please just go away.
After looking at your sentence structure and spelling I doubt you teach school.
Due to your obvious lack of intellectual ability; I was trying to bring my verbiage down to your level so you could understand the meaning I was trying to integrate into your small mind.
Is that better? LOL what you think doesnt concern me.
That was quite witty! A lie, but witty nonetheless.