Same-sex marriage
Regarding the same-sex marriage issue, the BDN astonished me, and no doubt other many other Christian traditionalists, with this editorial observation about President Obama’s recent conversion: “it is the morally right thing [for the president] to do.”
This is quite a leap! As columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, the president’s flip-flop represents support for “a radical transformation of the most fundamental of social institutions.”
The BDN, in aligning itself with the president on so-called moral grounds, is, in effect, arguing that same-sex marriage is a civil right, not unlike the right to vote. So the logical implication of your morality argument is then, as Krauthammer explains, that those of us who still believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage are bigots.
Indeed!
Aren’t you turning the world on its head? Did your “editorial board” really think this thing through? Even if you ignore the slippery slope peril of same-sex marriage, one central question persists for me: How could my hometown newspaper, in good conscience, use its editorial voice to portray a significant portion of its readers as immoral bigots?
V. Paul Reynolds
Hampden
Preaching to the choir
Thank you, Pat LaMarche, Pulse Radio, Stephen and Tabitha King, Husson College, and the many other collaborators that brought Faces of the Poor to the stage of the Gracie Theater in Bangor on Wednesday night.
Seven brave, articulate adults shared their personal stories of extreme misfortune, poverty and prejudice with an attentive and warmly responsive crowd.
When someone in the audience lamented that only a few policymakers were present for the event, and that the house was packed with all the usual suspects, Pat quipped, “We preach to the choir so the choir will sing.”
As the featured guests spoke of their vulnerability, perseverance and gratitude, the empathy of their listeners was palpable.
If each listener shares just one of the seven stories with someone who did not attend, the special evening will deservedly have a longer lasting impact.
Sing, choir, sing!
Meg Callaway
Old Town
Senate endorsement
I support Matt Dunlap for the U.S. Senate. He served in the House and then was secretary of state when I was in the House. He is knowledgeable on state matters and will serve us well.
He is a party politician but will work well with other parties.
Raymond Pineau
Jay
Dangerous curve
Re: your recent article about the “dangerous curve” leading into railroad tracks in Ellsworth ( BDN, May 19-20), let me join the crowd. Yes, in 2010, I too, along with my family happened upon the curve and in no time at all we were headed down some railroad tracks to nowhere. It was night and the experience was like a Stephen King movie.
I was going to make a comment about a possible phantom train coming down the tracks right at us, it wouldn’t have surprised me at all. Then I learned this Memorial Day there will be actual real trains on these tracks.
My family was lucky. No damage to the car and no one was hurt. Please fix this deadly situation, that yellow tape isn’t going to do the job.
Rick Emmert
Eastport
LMF bond
I am writing to thank my legislative representative, Pete Johnson of Greenville, and all of the other legislators who voted to authorize a bond issue that will provide funding for the Land for Maine’s Future program.
Past funding of LMF has generated economic benefits for the people of Maine. A recent Trust for Public Land study found that every $1 invested in land conservation through LMF returned $11 in natural goods and services to Maine’s economy.
LMF protects Maine’s unique quality of place and natural-resource-based economy by conserving our forests, farms, fisheries and wildlife. By safeguarding Maine’s “green infrastructure,” LMF supports several sectors of Maine’s economy: forestry, agriculture, fishing and nature-based tourism.
Previous LMF funds have protected land in each of Maine’s 16 counties. I live in the Moosehead region: In my own “backyard,” LMF funding has protected Mount Kineo, Nahmakanta Lake and the West Branch of the Penobscot River. There are many more special places throughout our state that deserve protection. However, LMF lacks money for future land purchases.
The LMF bond is a smart investment for Maine, one that will benefit Mainers on many levels for many generations to come. I hope that Rep. Johnson — and other members of the Legislature — will continue to vote to support the LMF bond in the event that Gov. Paul LePage decides to veto it. Maine people deserve a chance to vote on the LMF bond this November.
Wendy Weiger
Greenville Junction
We like Maine
There is absolutely nothing dishonest about those of us against Peter Vigue’s east-west highway. We like the rural life, where it is really quiet. We like to hear the birds sing. We like it dark at night for stargazing, we like our contiguous forest, cleanest air in the country, and cleanest lakes in Maine. We like to shop in town at the local independent businesses, and we like the two-lane roads.
Rather it is deceitful of Peter Vigue to not explain up front why he wants a 2,000-foot right of way for a highway smaller than the turnpike and some power transmission lines. Why is he keeping the investors secret? What’s the real agenda here? And by the way, Mr. Vigue, the population of Piscataquis County grew 2 percent from 2000 to 2010. People move here for the opportunity to have a lifestyle hard to find in the rest of America.
Julia Flanders
Guilford
Maine’s Future Bond
I was pleased to see that Sen. Kevin Raye and Rep. David Burns both voted in favor of the Land for Maine’s Future bond.
There are some very important lands in Washington County that need LMF funds, and we are fortunate to have legislators who recognize the value of the LMF program and its history of broad, bipartisan support. The misguided governor has said he will veto all bonds, but I trust that Sen. Raye and Rep. Burns will both stick with their votes and override any such veto.
Andrew Cadot
Roque Bluffs
If one reads into that statement that those who don’t support same-sex marriage are bigots, that’s on you.
*I* don’t say that. *I* don’t believe that. There ARE bigots out there, but not everyone who opposes my right to marry my loved one is a bigot.
“The LMF bond is a smart investment for Maine, one that will benefit Mainers on many levels for many generations to come” AND one that many generations will have to pay for.
Lets stop borrowing money we can’t afford to pay back.
We can’t afford to take care of our elderly, infirmed and needy but we can raise money to perserve a view shed?
Stop borrowing or at least prioritize our limited pool of money.
…..
Exempta juvat spiris e pluribus unus.
Feliz Navidad!
:-)
..
V. Paul Reynolds:
The only thing amoral is SSM
I think you must mean immoral. I can’t think of anything having to do with sex in today’s society that generally might be considered “amoral.” Amoral means neither moral nor immoral. What would our society’s morals encompass if we were to take sex out of the equation?
“We know the lion from his claw.” Interesting! It reminds me of those videos showing an elephant holding a paint brush in his trunk and making a painting, when later it was revealed that the video was actually of a man’s arm in a glove made to appear to be an elephant’s trunk. We know him from his claw indeed.
Kind of like musicians who lip synch, their lips move but nothing comes out
The thing that is immoral is prejudice.
Treating your neighbor fairly, and giving all Americans the same freedom and equal protection under the law, is the moral thing.
My gay neighbors should have the same freedom to marry that my wife and I have taken for granted as our freedom for the past 33 years.
So you don’t think your gay neighbors deserve the same rights as you and you think they’ll tarnish what’s sacred — fine, that’s your opinion. But why the hell do you act startled when you’re informed that some deem that to be offensive and bigoted? You’re literally saying gays would destroy marriage and you’re trying to act like that’s a perfectly neutral and friendly thing to say.
My gay neighbors do have the same rights that I do….gay males have the right to marry any woman that is not closely related to him and is of age (or with parents written permission) and gay females have the right to marry any man not closely related and of age. Not everyone is able to marry those they “love”
You don’t seem to see the problem. Men may marry women, but women can’t marry women. Women may marry men, but men can’t marry men. That is gender inequality. Remove gender from the equation and you get consenting adult may marry consenting adult.
This will still not enable all to marry their “loved” ones.
Why not?
And why is the word love in quotes?
My guess is, the cat, dog, thing.
It seems that you’re okay with the notion that “not everyone is able to marry the one they ‘love.'” Why are you okay with this? Why not change it to be more fair? Is not love important in marriage?
And, why is the word love in quotes? Are you saying that gay people THINK they are in love but it’s not a real love?
Wow – tough crowd. Let me see put my two cents in on behalf of thisonewillwork. A pedophile may think they’re in love with a 8-year-old – they can’t get married. You may be in love with your sister – you cannot get married. I may be in love with your spouse – sorry, they’re already married. Someone may be in love with their cat – I believe that’s still illegal in most states. You all may be looking into the phrase “love” too much. Thisonewillwork, please correct me if I am wrong.
And I am one of the horrible people who believes in some sort of legal platform for those same sex couples (I can’t use SSM – too close to S&M -which may be illegal in most states, too) that legally represents the same “rights” as everyone like to yell about – equality via legal bonding of sorts, yes; using marriage to produce it, no. Let the stoning begin…
goodcitizen73 let me take you post one point at a time:
“A pedophile may think they’re in love with a 8-year-old – they can’t get married.”
Pedophilia is not about “love” but power and control.
~~~~~
“You may be in love with your sister – you cannot get married.”
It is called incest and marriage is banned for that reason and also the possibility of producing genetically mutated children,
~~~~~
“I may be in love with your spouse – sorry, they’re already married.”
Polygamy is illegal and even has a SCOTUS decision concerning polygamy as a “religious” doctrine. The decision is Reynolds v. United States and dates to 1879.
~~~~~
“Someone may be in love with their cat – I believe that’s still illegal in most states.”
It is illegal in ALL states and will not change based on SSM.
~~~~~
Now, do you have a logical argument against SSM that does not involve pedophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality, S&M, etc….?
”
Pedophilia is not about “love” but power and control.” Tell that to the pedophile.
I know heterosexual couples where one is only in it for power and control, but they’ll tell you it’s for love. And I know some gay couples that are the same.
The basis of his argument was logical. And he also offered a compromise as long as marriage is left as is. What’s wrong with a compromise? Of course, there is no room for compromise as long as one group is hell-bent on getting their way by injecting their immorality into the an otherwise moral institution of marriage.
Pedophilia is a crime of power and control EJ….tell the victim or their family it is about “love” and you likely will need an ambulance to care for your injuries.
The problem with a compromise in NOM doesn’t support that either. It is there public position that SSM or civil unions will not be the law of the land. So when that is the public position you expect compromise to work?
I would support civil unions, but will not support SSM.
As for pedophiles, they are sick, twisted losers that need to be locked up for good. Trouble is, with groups like NAMBLA to cover their perversions, far too many are protected. But, that’s a subject for another day.
So you suppor the repeal of the Defense of Marriage act the, right?
So you support second-class civil unions, but not full equality. That’s saying to gays and lesbians, “You’re not good enough to be treated like full citizens, but we’ll give you something less than what everyone else gets, and you should be happy about that.” It won’t fly, EJ. Second-class citizenship is just not the same as fairness and equality.
Second time here – EJ. You can’t even be a little light hearted in the matter – people so get those knickers in an awful bind way up there where the sun don’t shine. Funny how I can give simple exmaples of people who can’t get married out of the “l” word, and suddenly I’m a pedophilia, incest, polygamy, bestiality, S&M guru. I’ve had enough yelling from the mountain top preaching only they are allowed to have an opinion or comment, how about you? It is entertaining though.
You are equating SSM with a series of perversions and illegal actions. How would you characterize yourself ?
Apparently someone who can have an opinion on a matter and be at least a little light-hearted in the matter. Like I said – way too serious with posts, folks. Quit reading into it already. No equating here – when you say the abreviation too fast, sort of like the name Mike Hunt – you all know the joke – please step off that pedistal and read it for what it is – everyone was so quick to crap on the person’s posts because you can’t aways marry the ones you love..many of you need to get out more and get away from those computers…
that is not really a response…. spin all you want to support your comment and save your pride, but it does not make any sense…. maybe that is what you meant with your original post, to be senseless..
if humor was your intent, you have failed.. if you think that what you wrote is interesting it is not, it is boring, boring, boring…
heard that before ?
How about the love between two consenting non-sibling adult humans?
You can nitpick it all you want, but you know very well what we’re talking about.
That is what I am talking about. If my gay neighbors can marry, (as 2 consenting adults) why cant I marry my son or daughter, niece or nephew, sister or brother, 1st cousin, my spouses sibling while I am still married, my neighbors spouse.
That’s not an argument. You could use the same argument to ban interracial marriage. Everyone has the same rights, you just have to marry within your race.
You can use the same argument for most forms of discrimination.
You’re free to sit on the bus-just in the back!
You’re free to smoke-just do it outside!
You’re free to own a gun-just not THAT gun!
You’re free to marry-just marry a woman!
Let me see if I understand you:
I’m straight, by the way. I have been married for 33 years to the adult person I’m attracted to and love.
You say that gays have the right to marry people they are NOT attracted to and DON’T love, and that somehow means they have the same freedoms that I have.
I don’t see how the two things are in any way similar.
Do you really think that the right to marry someone you’re not attracted to and don’t love is the same as the freedom to marry someone you are attracted to and do love?
I think the key is you can marry if you “love.” Do you “love” your spouse? I am not sure what “love” is, but I think that that’s the key to everything!
Of course and isn’t it ironic they purport to be protecting the sanctity of marriage and yet they advocate gay people simply go against the very intent of marriage (commit to the one you love) by marrying someone of the opposite gender.
They never talk about love. It’s only cold, sterile, basic biology to them. I, as a man, have the freedom to marry any random women-no love required, not matter what Mr. Sinatra says. What a world….
8888
V. Paul Reynolds–How do you feel about inter-racial marriage? You sound exactly like those who vehemently opposed this perfectly normal and accepted practice not that long ago. Those that fought against inter racial marriage were bigots. Connect the dots if you can.
Please don’t tell that that to our black brothers and sisters who overwhelmingly oppose SSM at the voting booth. Now you connect the dots.
59% pro equal marital rights in the latest poll. I don’t call that overwhelming opposition.
Over 90% of blacks opposed homosexual marriage in California ….. The most liberal state in the Nation. Yeah, that’s overwhelming in my book.
That was 2008. An awful lot has happened since then.
Wonder if jd2008 will ask for your sources? Nah, silly thought.
Why don’t you ask him? Not that it matters because people are less likely to ask for references for what they already know.
I don’t see anyone who opposes us asking for our sources, though….
LOL, so you don’t have them for the 90% figure?
So are you going to produce your “proof” cp444? Nah, silly thought.
So please explain why the NAACP recently came out in support of SSM.
Because they were uncomfortable with the “official” position of their community-leading organization to be seen as being against another disenfranchised group.
Could you source your claim cp444? Or as you so eloquently put it….Prove It.
Someone on this page who appears to agree with your point of view said that figure was 70% — so where did you get the 90% figure? Did you just make it up?
2008 was four years ago, and there appears to have been a major shift away from the kind of prejudice you express, and toward greater fairness and equal treatment under the law, especially among the younger voters who will determine this issue in the future.
You can’t just make this stuff up.
In 2008, 58% of African-Americans voted against SSM. There has been a sea-change since then, in both Black and White opinion. The overwhelmingly African-American District of Columbia has legalized SSM. Nobody with any sense of current affairs would describe California as the most liberal state in the nation. That honor goes to Vermont. California probably squeaks in as the tenth most liberal state in the nation.
Maine, in a high turnout election this fall, will legalize SSM. If this makes you uncomfortable, I would suggest you think about moving to a state like Oklahoma. It will take a U.S. Supreme Court decision to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.
Relax. Join the 21st Century. SSM poses no threat to your marriage.
I have to admit I have never understood how SSM supposedly cheapens *my* marriage. I don’t see how it affects my marriage in any way.
I believe it played no role whatsoever in the breakup of Newt Gingrich’s first two marriages.
Massachusetts, the first state to legalize SSM, has a very low divorce rate. Oklahoma, one of the first states to outlaw SSM in its state constitution, has a very high divorce rate.
One would think that legalized divorce would be considered the number one threat to the institution of marriage. Yet divorce has been legal for hundreds of years, with nary a peep from the sanctity of marriage peeps.
Here are some dots for you: “Further, this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, finds that support for gay marriage has reached a new high among African-Americans in ABC/Post polls, up from four in 10 in recent surveys to 59 percent now.” http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/strong-support-for-gay-marriage-now-exceeds-strong-opposition/
Notice, people, how I cite my facts?
That’s because he makes things up as he goes…. LATimes “70% of African Americans backed Prop. 8, exit poll finds” November 5, 2008 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/70-of-african-a.html
Yes, those numbers you cite may have been accurate at the time — but Prop 8 was a few years ago, and the numbers have been shifting rapidly. Today fewer and fewer Americans support prejudice against gays and lesbians, and more and more favor fairness and equal treatment under the law.
The NAACP, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and other prominent African-Americans have voiced their support for the freedom to marry, and African-Americans no longer oppose equal treatment for gays and lesbians in the numbers they did at the time of Prop 8.
A poll is anything but factual as you claim. In 2012 52% of African Americans opposed SSM, 38% favored. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-detailed_tables/Gay%20mar%20detailed%20tables.pdf
Me personally, unlike our President, the direction of the wind has nothing to do with my stance on homosexuality. Gods word is quite clear on marriage being between a man and a woman, period. I need no other reason than that. This President who claims to be a Christian has clearly gone against Gods will and will someday have to answer for that.
I appreciate you citing your source. I do not claim that any one poll is the end all on the topic, but I will say that the poll you cite showing 52% is not overwhelming and shows an 11% increase in support among black Americans since 2008.
I’d like to ask must all of the laws of the nation agree with everyone’s religious beliefs? What a mess this place would be.
God’s word is very clear that we should welcome the stranger in our midst, and Jesus invited everyone to the banquet table. Jesus never went about preaching against gays and lesbians, nor did he ever support prejudice, but he did say, “Judge not so you will not be judged.”
Are you afraid that when same sex marriage passes this November you will be compelled to marry someone of the same sex?
Maybe he thinks his wife will leave him for another woman when SSM passes. Then who will iron his shirts?
But how do we know that cp444 is a man?
Because he is just 222 shy of the devil’s number 666.
Does the cp mean he is a member of the Communist Party?
Yes it means he joined the Communist Party in April 1944.
You have unmasked him (her?)!
Just guessing. ;)
A new high? That number had nowhere to go BUT up.
Actually they are evolving to end all discrimination . Now it is for you to connect the dots and do the same, brother or sister.
V. Paul Reynolds – Today you will be the SSM supporters whipping boy. Why? Because you wrote the truth, and the left can’t handle the truth. Hang in there.
EJParsone I see you are at it again. Do not be afraid of Gay people and please get to know some as they are not that scary. Once you get to know Gay people you will see the “truth” about them and the truth will set you free.
I’m not afraid of gay people. I’m just opposed to SSM.
I hope you are going to consider political campaigns to criminalize premarital sex and legally end divorce, lest you want to add hypocrite to that bigot label.
I think we need to make divorce illegal, that’s a sin too.
The majority of the people oppose SSM. 31 states have constitutional amendments against SSM. Every time the American people have the opportunity to vote on SSM, it is rejected. You know the facts. The other posters are trying to deceive the people.
31 states over 12 years. It’s a much different world now than it was in 1998 and even in 2008.
Polls taken in the 1990s backed the results at the ballot box. Polls taken in the 2000s also. Polls today show a majority nation-wide, where there is less support in the south and more in the northeast, so what does that say about the elections in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington?
Of course, the only poll that counts is the one in November in those four states.
Keep repeating the mantra of 31 states-it matters not. It might be 35 after November or it might be 32 and 3. Who knows? But really, we all know that that trend of rejecting our right to marry the one we love is ending.
Those numbers have continued to shift away from the old prejudice, and toward greater fairness and equal treatment under the law. Polls now say that a majority of Americans support the freedom to marry regardless of sexual orientation.
Yes, in 31 states over the last decade or more every state-wide vote has gone with the traditional prejudices, but that trend may be changing. It took a long time to overcome the prejudice against letting women vote. It took a long time to overcome the laws that codified racial segregation. Prejudice against letting gays and lesbians marry appears to be fading. We’ll see what happens this November, and after that, as younger people — who have far less prejudice — become the majority of voters.
I’ll grant you that you are probably not “afraid” of gay people, at least not consciously. But do you appear to be prejudiced? I think the answer to that is “yes.”
EJ, we should all be treated fairly, and we should all have the same freedoms under the laws of this nation.
I’ve gradually overcome my prejudice (I grew up with the same kind of prejudice against gays and lesbians). A lot of overcoming prejudice has to do with just getting to know people, and to realize that people who happen to be gay or lesbian have the same kind of lives, and hopes and dreams, that straight people like myself have.
At one point I asked myself, “If I feel secure about my own sexuality, why should I worry about someone else?” I realized that if someone was a little different from me, it’s no big deal.
It has nothing to do with sexuality, prejudice, or bigotry, and everything to do with morality and my faith in Christ and His Word.
I truly believe that the lifestyle is a choice, and there is no scientific or any other solid evidence to prove otherwise. The Bible clearly states that it is a lifestyle that can be turned away from in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
I truly believe that it is immoral because it flies directly in the face of morals by themselves, and has to be “justified” through the making of morals relative. Moral relativity is just another way to justify immoral behavior.
I believe it is unnatural, because a homosexual relationship does nothing to assist with the survival of the species.
That said, I believe that people have the right to choose and live the homosexual lifestyle as long as their choice doesn’t adversely effect the lifestyles of others. To me, SSM adversely effects the traditional institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
What’s wrong with civil unions with the same benefits? I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it. The homosexual community will not accept it because their goal is to run God out of the marriage business. Marriage equality is not their goal.
On another note, if SSM is put into law, photographers, DJs, wedding planners, caterers, etc., that don’t support the practice will be open for lawsuits if they refuse service to homosexual couples based on their moral beliefs. Eventually, churches will be open for lawsuits. And the tide of immorality will continue to roll.
Think I’m crazy? It’s already happening in other states and other countries.
So why do you get to demand scientific evidence of a “gay gene” but we can’t demand scientific evidence of your religion? Why the double standard?
No, churches will not be subject to lawsuits, that’s an obvious and blatant lie. Do the state force churches to marry interfaith couples? No. Does the state force churches to marry those who have been previously divorced? No. So why the heck would it be different here? You’re obviously just distorting the truth as a scare tactic.
Google “churches forced to perform same sex ceremonies”. Some interesting reading there.
By the way, you completely brushed off my comment about other being sued if they refuse to be part of a SSM.
As for scientific evidence of a religion? Can’t say that I’ve heard that one before. Religion is based on faith, not science.
In regards to the Hawaii case. I don’t think any church should be forced to perform any sort of marriage.
That being said, I think it needs to be examined if a church allows the public to use its facilities and then denies the gay members of the public use of its facilities, such as what happened in New Jersey. Would this church in Hawaii be allowed to say no to a black or interracial couple? And who was going to perform the ceremony. I need to know more on this….
I’m not going to say that any gay person should be able to use any church facility as long as the minister isn’t forced-I think, like many accusations of discrimination, it should be examined on a case by case basis.
In this case the real question is this: If a state allows for SSM, then why would a gay couple want to have a wedding in a place that does not approve of the union, and why would a gay couple want to contract with caterers, photographers, DJs, planners, etc, that oppose gay marriage? Wouldn’t you say that there would be gay couples out there that would specifically target such establishments or businesses solely for the purpose of a lawsuit or publicity? That would be targeted discrimination.
EJ…it is currently illegal in Maine to discriminate based on sexual orientation in public accommodations (photographers, DJs, wedding planners, caterers, etc.,) if they refuse to provide the same services for a homosexual couple as a straight couple. SSM will have no affect on this
situation.
I honestly can’t answer that. *I* wouldn’t do that-my boyfriend and I belong to a wonderful supportive church that would be more than happy to celebrate our marriage. I don’t know the specifics of the Hawaii case, but I don’t think that it’s always a good thing to push like that.
But again, if a church rents out its facilities to the public that is not part of the church and decides that a certain group within that public cannot use the facility, that sounds like discrimination. Do people search out those cases? I’ll say that I know that people on both sides are targeted.
A church should have the right to refuse a group that goes against the beliefs of the church. Let’s say that a group of Satan worshipers were looking for a place to hold one of their events; should a Baptist church have the right to refuse them? Of course.
Absolutely,
and they should be able to refuse all those Blacks, and Mexicans, and Asians as well, for we all know they are of low moral fibre. Just what is the name of your church anyway EJ?
Yes, EJ, churches DO have the right to discriminate, and that right is protected under the proposed Freedom to Marry referendum in Maine. Catholic Churches have always had the right to refuse to marry non-Catholics or to refuse to marry divorced people. That’s not going to change. If a church doesn’t want to marry someone, they have the right to tell them “No, go somewhere else.” Maine’s Freedom to Marry initiative protects the rights of churches to refuse to perform any ceremony that goes against their doctrines. This is a non-issue.
It’s already illegal to do that. You don’t even know what you are talking about. Just spewing misinformation left and right. Spewing hatred and pretending to be moral. Disgusting and unamerican.
The pastor of the church I attend decides who he will perform marriage ceremonies for, and who he will not. If he deems them to be not serious about their commitment to one another, he can say “no, go to a justice of the peace, but I won’t perform the ceremony.”
Catholics are not required to marry divorced people. If a pastor is prejudiced against interracial couples, he can “just say no.” The ballot question in Maine specifically protects religious organizations.
You are trying to raise a false issue. It won’t fly.
Regardless, the question on Maine’s ballot protects churches against suit, so you don’t have a point.
You can already be sued in Maine for refusing to serve someone simply for being gay. That’s called discrimination. Again, no point.
If you demand scientific evidence of others and not of yourself, then you’re being a hypocrite. Don’t use your “faith” to deny others equality. You’re forcing your neighbors to deal with the real world implications of your faith. If you’re willing to burden your neighbors based on faith, then I demand evidence otherwise it has no place in a discussion of civil law.
Keep it in civil law by making it a civil union. Leave marriage alone.
It IS a civil marriage license EJ…the state does not issue Religious Marriage Licenses.
There is already a civil law on the books in the state of Maine called marriage.
So you admit you were lying.
DOMA prevents any civil union from ever having the same rights and benefits of civil marriage. The only thing that would bring about equality would be marriage. Period.
“Separate but equal” is NOT equal. Segregation was never fair, EJ. Telling people “You’re not good enough to have REAL marriage, but we’ll give you second-class civil unions” is not equal or fair.
No church can be compelled to perform any marriage ceremony. Period. It’s always up to the church.
EJ, I have to ask this, do truly believe, that hundreds of thousands of people who say they didn’t choose to be gay, are lying ? Also what of those like myself who state that they where born heterosexuals, are we lying ?
Lying? In come cases, certainly. But in the vast majority of cases, I believe it all boils down to deception, confusion, and deceit; most of which can be attributed to living a life without Christ as Lord and Savior. That’s what I truly believe.
Who, deceived, these people, who confused them, I know a few gays that where brought up, inthe Pentecostal Churches, of Maine’s Bible Belt. They grew up with Christ, and are still gay.
One might look at who is being deceived, It’s been proven many time’s that the Church deceives.
Satan is the Great Deceiver. And he works inside churches and outside as long as there is a willing heart for him to inhabit. But, yes, many churches do deceive. Churches like the Westboro Baptist Church, the UU, the Episcopalians, those that kiss snakes, and many more deceive. Of course, that’s not God’s fault; that’s man’s.
As for growing up with Christ, it’s one thing to know about Him while it’s a whole different ballgame knowing Him.
Maybe Satan is deceiving you, EJ. Or, more likely, you are deceiving yourself. Keep saying to yourself, “I’m not prejudiced. I only SOUND prejudiced.”
I only see you deceiving here. Not to many others are posting such blatant lies.
I have previously provided you with scientific evidence that to be gay is not a choice. You have decided to not believe the evidence before your eyes.
You are a dishonest man hiding behind religiosity.
You’re spot on. Provided with evidence, he would call it “junk science” and dismiss it. Then he’d cite old studies from the 70s calling homosexuality a disorder and demand that you treat it as absolute truth. He also somehow forces us to accept that by default without evidence, homosexuality has to be a choice.
It’s all a convenient excuse for hatred and discrimination.
He is a strange bird who along with wawell seems to get his jollies from sticking his nose in other people’s private lives. It is very creepy.
There is no conclusive scientific evidence of a gay gene. In fact, the homosexual agenda dropped the search for conclusive scientific evidence several years back and are putting their efforts in the area of psychology. And we all know that psychology is inconclusive.
You do know that not everything about an organism can be attributed to a single gene, right? Especially something complex as emotions, love, and behavior.
So, you are admitting that there is no gay gene. And you would be right. It’s not a matte of genetics at all. It’s a matter of personal choice.
That’s not how genes work. People have told you that time and time again and you continue to spew misinformation. It’s wrong.
So when did you choose to be straight? ‘Cause I never chose to be straight. I was born this way. It isn’t a choice.
it seems that science is one more area you do not understand…
That’s not how genes work anyway. And you’re lying when you demand scientific evidence because you’d dismiss it anyway like you do with all science.
But EJ the Christian religion does not make civil law anymore than any other religion does. I doubt if you would agree if the Hebrew religion all of a sudden demanded that nothing occur between sunset of Friday and sunset on Saturday. Or if any other religion attempted to influence civil law here in the U.S.
Remove religion from the equation completely, and homosexuality will still be an immoral and unnatural lifestyle choice. Unless, of course, you make the morals relative. Then even murder can be justified. Oh, wait, it’s already justified through abortion. Go figure.
Please list the states that currently criminalize homosexuality EJ.
You’re twisting again.
You just compared homosexuality to murder! Then you scream about having your words twisted. It’s sick.
and again you are caught in your own bull…
EJ murder is illegal in all 50 states. You choose to compare homosexuality to murder and I asked a simple question. So why not answer the question EJ?
Nope. Wrong again!
“On another note, if SSM is put into law, photographers, DJs, wedding
planners, caterers, etc., that don’t support the practice will be open
for lawsuits if they refuse service to homosexual couples based on their
moral beliefs. Eventually, churches will be open for lawsuits. And the
tide of immorality will continue to roll. ”
Incorrect EJ…it is currently illegal in Maine to discriminate based on sexual orientation in public accommodations (photographers, DJs, wedding
planners, caterers, etc.,) if they refuse to provide the same services for a homosexual couple as a straight couple. SSM will have no affect on this situation.
And SSM will not force ANY church (or church organization) to perform a marriage ceremony (or provide services i.e. social hall rental, etc…) if it violates church doctrine. Now answer me this, currently a church can refuse to marry ANY couple they wish without penalty or fear of lawsuit, why would that change?
A privately owned business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish, especially if their basis for refusal is a moral, ethical or religious reason. And the state should not be able to penalize a privately owned business for refusing service. Maybe that’s one of the reasons businesses aren’t starting or growing in Maine.
I think laws that prohibit discrimination are pretty prevalent throughout the country. It’s just not in Maine.
________________________________
From: Disqus
To: davidcox207@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 8:16 PM
Subject: [bdn] Re: Wednesday, May 30: Dunlap for Senate, a dangerous curve
EJParsons wrote, in response to jd2008jd:
A privately owned business should have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish, especially if their basis for refusal is a moral, ethical or religious reason. And the state should not be able to penalize a privately owned business for refusing service. Maybe that’s one of the reasons businesses aren’t starting or growing in Maine. Link to comment
Like a privately own business should have the right to refuse a black person service? We got rid of that bigoted garbage a long time ago. We never need to go back to that.
So if I don’t like women I should be able to refuse to serve them based on their gender?
Or if I don’t like Christians I should be able to refuse them service because my religion is different?
Really EJ…”A privately owned business should have the right to refuse service to
anyone they wish, especially if their basis for refusal is a moral,
ethical or religious reason” really?????
Yes. Within reason.
Who determines the “within reason” EJ.
Let’s say I don’t like blacks in general…should I be allowed to ban them from my store? If I serve food should I be allowed to make them eat in a different area than other customers?
Am I being “reasonable” with my decisions regarding blacks? If you think no, what would be reasonable in your opinion?
That’s not within reason. Quit twisting the meaning of what I wrote.
That’s exactly what you said though. You want to be able to discriminate against people and yet you want to be held up as a supreme moral being. If you’re wishing to deny service to someone for an immutable characteristic then that’s discrimination. Period. There is nothing reasonable about that.
caught in your own bull….
EJ you said discrimination “within reason” was acceptable. You said small businesses should be able to choose who they serve “especially” if it was based on “moral, ethical or religious” grounds. Those are your unadulterated words. You either. Elieve those words or you don’t. If you believe that it is OK to discriminate but what does the Bible sy about discrimination which you have said is your moral compass and guide?
O, so YOU get to decide what is “within reason.” You say it isn’t within reason to discriminate unfairly against blacks, but is IS within (your) reason to discriminate unfairly against gays. You get to decide. That’s an intresting way to make laws.
Somebody else may think it is within reason to discriminate unfairly against Jews, or Baptists. I’m sure everyone has an opinion about someone they don’t like.
No privately owned business should have the right to refuse Jews, blacks, Latinos, Catholics, gays, or any other such group. That’s a civil rights issue. We went through this in the 1950s and ’60s, EJ. Don’t try to turn the clock back.
Because the homosexual mafia hates religion. Duh.
Thanks for chiming in Joe…
EJ, you remind me of people who I knew in the ’60s and ’70s who would say, “I’m not prejudiced against Negros, but…” and then they would say something that showed their prejudice.
There are more than 30,000 verses in the Bible. Why do you go searching for the very few (six in fact) that say something vaguely related to the topic of homosexuality? Six verses out of more than 30,000 must make this one of the very smallest issues in the Bible!
And then, we really don’t know what Paul meant — or what his readers understood — by his use of the Greek words “malakoi” (“soft”) and “arsenokoitai” (“male-bed”) in 1 Corinthians 6:9. The word “malakoi” is used in other places in the New Testament where it refers to people lacking moral control or self-discipline, but does not refer to sexuality in those places. Many scholars think that “arsenokoitai” referred to male prostitutes, or to men who sexually exploited children. Paul never used any word that is the equivalent of the modern word “homosexual.”
So you have gone to the Bible armed with your anti-gay prejudice, hoping to find confirmation for that prejudice, and you are grasping at the straws of a few, very few, words like “soft” and “male-bed,” hoping that they will say, “See, EJ, your prejudice is justified by the Bible!”
Except that it isn’t. Jesus welcomed everyone to his banquet table, especially (especially!) those who were rejected by “proper” society because they were regarded as outsiders.
Finally you ask, “what’s wrong with civil unions?” Yes, I remember people who said, “What’s wrong with separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, and schools for Negros? Give them separate institutions. We’re treating them fairly, why are they complaining?”
“Separate but equal” is never equal. It says, “You’re not good enough to be treated like full citizens.” When you say “I can get married because I’m straight, but you’ll have to settle for less because you’re not good enough to get married” you are discriminating unfairly. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
” ‘Separate but equal’ is inherently unequal” — U.S. Supreme Court, Brown v. Board of Education
I meet with gay people at least once a week at breakfast. I also have two cousins who are in gay relationships. I treat them with respect like everyone else with whom I have a disagreement. So far I have not met anyone who agrees with me on everything. So I have learned to accept everyone regardless of their lifestyle even though I may not agree with it. The truth of the matter is that loving others doesn’t mean one has to agree with them. That’s a basic truth I find that a lot of gays have trouble accepting.
loving others does not mean that you have to agree with them, but it does mean that you should never work against their best interests..
I see myself as trying the promote the self interest of all, particularly children who are much more vulnerable than adults that can make decisions for themselves.
so you have said….. take another good long look in the mirror….
While he ignores the plethora of studies that indicate children do well with two loving parents in any gender combination….
he does not care…. he only cares about being right, which if not so pathetic would be funny
nice that he has such tolerant cousins…
Correct. I can’t handle the truth. Good one, Jack Nicholson!
Yeah, you’re the one getting whipped while you deny the same rights you enjoy to your neighbors. Good one. Let me guess, up is the new down?
I support SSM, and believe me, no one would describe me as being to the “left”
My Dad, who is a member of the Tea Party, supports SSM and abortion. He says that it’s nobodies damn business.
I’d say that by the nearly daily conversation in the BDN, it’s the business of a whole lot of people. Nevertheless, the people will vote once again in November. And if it is defeated, it will be by a slimmer margin than before because people are getting sick of the issue and are tired of the bigotry and name calling coming from both sides. You beat a dog enough, and it will eat whatever you give it. That’s what the supporters are counting on.
EJ, nobody’s making you read the paper or comment, if you’re tired of the debate, don’t join in.
Tired? Me? I think not. There has to be a voice of reason in this discussion. And I’m glad to be that voice.
I’m sorry, EJ somebody, who never sees the gray areas in life, can not be the voice of reason.
I see the gray areas quite clearly. I have often stated that I would support civil unions as a compromise, but that has been soundly rejected by many.
I have stated on many occasions that homosexuals have the right to live the lifestyle they’ve chosen, and I spent a couple of decades in uniform ensuring that we can all live free.
I am not out to persecute anyone. I just feel that the institution of marriage should remain between one man and one woman. But, for reasons that are based on pure selfishness, supporters of SSM feel as if I am a bigot because I want to defend traditional marriage. Truthfully, I couldn’t care less anymore. The hatred and bigotry come primarily from the supporters side.
If Mainers vote for SSM in November, then so be it. I’m sure there will be lots of celebrations and front page coverage in the BDN for months. On the other hand, if SSM is defeated in November, the hatred and bigotry against the opposition will escalate, and who knows what might happen. Misplaced passion is a terribly unstable characteristic.
Either way, SSM is only one more step in the homosexual agenda. It isn’t the end, and we all know that.
And, yes, I am a voice of reason.
You’re not being honest. Civil unions will never be equal to marriage for several reasons. We already know that seperate is inherently unequal. And second, The Defense of Marriage Act bans conferring marriage rights to homosexual couples.
Apparently you’re an advocate for civil unions — do you then support the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act? Please be honest.
EJ, you constantly do battle against reason. Don’t kid yourself.
Yes, EJ, that would be the ONLY reason. Not a single person in the state has changed his or her mind on this issue, they’re just giving in to the homosexual mafia.
Again, our agenda has been made public!!!!!
Actually, the entire debate has switched people from one side to the other, in both directions. As one of the other commenters stated, there is no longer a gray area. You’re either for or against, and there is no room for compromise.
And, yes, more people are vocalizing their support for SSM, but more are also clamming up, waiting for their chance to be heard in the voting booth. It’s going to be interesting, either way the vote goes.
More and more people are deciding that fairness and equality are the moral place, and prejudice is the immoral one.
EJ, you take an AWFUL beating daily with the proverbial stoning with rotten vegetables routine from your foes, but you hold your ground. Although not very religious, I understand your choices; I don’t have to agree with them, but I understand because religion has a difference of opinion on same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is now in the same category as religion, politics and abortion – there is no gray area for discussion.
I also have no issue with EJ religious stand…but civil laws are not based on religions.
You are absolutely right. There is no gray area for discussion. And thanks for the kudos.
Many churches, synagogues, and religious individuals support fairness for all people regardless of their sexual orientation. Jesus welcomed everyone to the banquet table, especially those who were regarded as outsiders; and he said, “Judge not so that you will not be judged.”
“Judge not so that you will not be judged” is just in 2 verses of the Bible, which is less than the 6 that vaguely talk about homosexuality. So tell me which one is less significant. Just curious.
Mr. Reynolds, you will never find an admitted bigot nor will you ever find an admitted racist. If the shoe fits …
V. Paul Reynolds, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it might be a duck. So if one speaks like a bigot and acts like a bigot then they may be a bigot.
Bravo to all the legislators that supported Land for Maine’s Future funding. Happy to see them get a few things right. Taking care of Maine and the people who call this home should be their only priority.
Mr. Reynolds surprises me by using the term “slippery slope” with regards to SSM. Did it not occur to him that a similar “What’s next, dogs and cats?” sentiment was likely expressed back when the hot-button marriage discussion was about whites and blacks?
Paul,
Perhaps because you are?
Three cheers for V. Paul Reynolds! Well said, sir.
Prejudice is never well said.
Isn’t it ironic that the ones that scream bloody murder about “political correctness” are the same ones who can’t handle being called out for their bigotry?
No Mr. Reynolds, you are entirely free to believe in the “sanctity” of marriage, even though it is essentially a civic construct. It is only when you want to deny other citizens marital benefits based purely on their sexuality that you risk being seen as a bigot, “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions or prejudices.”
Marriage between a man and a woman has a special meaning in our culture. Watering down this meaning to promote and encourage any other type of human relationship can only mean more children will be born out of wedlock. These children no doubt will not fare as well with cohabiting parents who are not as committed to each other in a lifelong relationship of love and who are much more likely to break up, particularly in the first 5 years of cohabitation.
“other citizens”- by which I assume you mean “same-sex couples” – are not denied marital benefits anymore than are single individuals, cohabiting couples, or people wanting to engage in polygamy. Marriage benefits (not rights) are intended to provide children with the best possible environment for their growth and nurturing that only their natural parents in a committed relationship of mutual love can provide. This doesn’t mean some same-sex couples can’t raise children better than some natural parents could. Rather, it means children for reasons of nature are deemed better off when state policy promotes their ties to their own natural parents as opposed to other parents. Let me conclude by saying: marriage benefits are not just for the asking. They are intended primarily for couples who can produce children through natural means. Yes, there are always exceptions, like in cases of couples who can’t produce children naturally on account of age. But these couples oftentimes act usefully as role models of parents and grandparents.
I know this explanation of what marriage ought to be won’t satisfy some people. A line however needs to be drawn when it comes to making public policy for the benefit of society as a whole. Our children’s welfare should not be substituted for an agenda to suit a relatively small minority of adults.
If only you could see how marriage for same sex couples does exactly the same as what you perceive it to do for traditional couples. It reinforces their commitment and creates stability both for society and any children involved. Obviously it doesn’t cause more children to be born out of wedlock but it certainly does improve the lives of any such children adopted by same sex couples. The only role models children need is that of loving and caring parents.
“Gay adoption” was imposed on the state by the courts. I don’t believe it should been have made a public policy, as heterosexual married couples tend to make better parents for reasons of nature. As a matter of fact, it was gay rights leaders who sued to force the state to permit gay adoption, for they knew voters would not permit it. They also knew that once gay couples could adopt they could use this newly acquired right as justification for marriage later on. And now we are witnessing it being used as justification.
Please share with us where gay adoption was forced on the states by the courts.
Cite your source.
And while you’re at it, please explain why you don’t feel this way about sterile couples?
Can anyone show me on a marriage license issued by the state it makes ANY mention of “children”, ” lifelong relationship”, procreation, etc…
It doesn’t have to mention “children” because the potential for procreation exists and is real. If you are really interested in knowing why the state gives married couples benefits check out the archives of the legislature, among other sources.
Tell me… why aren’t you pushing to end marriage for sterile couples?
Hypocrite.
The potential for children always exists, with or without marriage.
Absolutely, that’s my point. But that potential is assumed to exist only between heterosexual couples, and the state has never seen a need to require procreation since couples for the most part end up procreating.
Like there is a drought of people on this earth or something. God, get real man.
But that potential does NOT exist in knowingly infertile couples who you do not wish to ban from marriage. Hypocrite.
Kids have NOTHING to do with it… it’s a legal process and nothing more.
Then how can you hold gay couples to a standard that you won’t even hold straight couples to and act like that’s not discrimination?
No couple is held to a standard. Marriage is never compulsory.
You’re trying to argue that since two men and two women alone can’t produce children they don’t deserve marriage. The fact is that heterosexuals who can procreate are still able to wed. So unless you plan on banning heterosexuals who can’t procreate from marriage, then you have a pretty poor excuse to discriminate against gay people.
So, yes, you are holding gays to a higher standard.
Nope… there are none.
Yeah, but you miss the point.
There is no requirement for procreation for marriage in any state.
And why don’t I see you calling to end marriage for barren couples? How is that different?
Marriage is a right, not a privilege. The Declaration of Independence says that we have rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Surely the right to marry is part of the right to the pursuit of happiness! Marrige brings with it many benefits, and it is a right, a right that brings benefits with the right to pursue the happiness of marriage.
My wife and I, married 33 years now, have never had children and are now beyond our child-bearing years, yet we have the right to be married.
Marriage is about love, and it encourages fidelity, commitment, family stability — but those benefits of marriage (which are good for society, good for straight couples, and also good for gay couples) do not depend on or require having children.
Because marriage is good for society, I want to encourage people to get married, not prohibit them from getting married! I’m for the freedom to marry because I’m for marriage.
No, the demand to have the state endorse one’s love relationship to another is not equivalent to the pursuit of happiness. One can be perfectly happy without that endorsement. Rather, this demand is an entitlement mentality just like those who want more and more welfare for themselves on account of the fact they are making less money than their neighbor. State endorsement of love relationships between and man and a woman – and the benefits that come with it – are intended to provide the best possible environment for children to be raised and nurtured. For reasons of nature opposite sex unions are better suited for that environment. That said, you seem to ignore the primary reasons for the benefits of marriage by stating it is about love, fidelity, and commitment; yet omit to mention it is about offspring as well, the most important reason.
By the way, marriage is not a freedom. People are indeed FREE to form and break up relationships at will. That’s a freedom. But people are not free to force the state to do something, like endorse certain relationships. That’s not a freedom. Rather, it’s a demand.
v.Paul, I am have no interest in men sexually (a position I might re-visit if my prison sentence were to be 10 yrs or more), but why should gays be denied the pain and suffering us married people must endure?
V. Paul…..’
the slippery slope peril of same-sex marriage?’ Seriously V. Paul? I’m not quite sure how someone who is gay and who wants to get married is a perilous slippery slope or frankly how it’s any of your or my or anyone else’s business.
I don’t imagine same sex marriage is anymore a slippery slope than all of the heterosexuals who have always had the right to get married and divorced and remarried and divorced and remarried. Seems to me the ‘slippery slope’ is this country is the abysmal divorce rate – of which gay people have had absolutely nothing to do with- and heterosexual people continue to excel at.
Allow me to give you a couple of well known examples: Larry King- married 8 times, Liz Taylor- married 8 times, Zsa Zsa Gabor- married 9 times, Eva Gabor- married 5 times, Magda Gabor- married 6 times, Lana Turner- married 8 times……..between those 6 people alone they have had a total of 44 spouses- and the slippery slope is GAY MARRIAGE?? And is that really ONE man and ONE woman?? Me thinks not. Maine has the 2nd highest divorce rate at 13.6% (right behind No#1 Utah at 14.2%) (www.mainestreet.com.) Reality check anyone? Marriage is definitely broken alright, but NEWS FLASH it’s clearly not due to gay people wanting to marry.
So here’s a question or two- How does someone getting married, who happens to be gay, take away from your or my rights or liberties- anymore than someone who is not gay and who gets married takes away from your or my rights? How does same sex marriage stop, limit or prohibit you from your Constitutional rights or opportunities as a United States Citizen? How does someone else, who has never had, but wants to have the EXACT SAME Constitutional rights and opportunities that you have had- become ‘special rights’ and not just equal rights? What’s so ‘special’ about wanting what everyone else has already been automatically afforded as United States Citizens? What? gay people aren’t as ‘American’ as straight American people are? And therefore are not afforded the same rights and responsibilities as any other American citizen? So gay people are only considered to be …what?… say….85% American while everyone else is 100% American? Is that how this works? Gay people are good enough to pay taxes, good enough to serve and die for this country in the military, follow the exact same laws and rules as everyone else, but they’re not good enough or ‘American’ enough to get married because what they want are ‘special rights.’ Really? And yes- I know that marriage isn’t in the Constitution- that being said if that were an actual valid point no one could get married- straight or gay. There are many things that are not mentioned in our Constitution that we have in this country…. such as an Air Force (the Constitution was written in 1787. It wasn’t unto 1909 that the first military airplane was ordered…..yet we still have an Air Force in this country- even though there is no mention of an Air Force in the Constitution just an Army and Navy – because airplanes did not exist when the constitution was written…..go figure.)
Gay marriage is no different than the anti-miscegenation laws that were on the books until 1967- and those laws and the RIDICULOUS fears people had said the exact same things- that if blacks and whites were to marry the sanctity of marriage would be destroyed, locusts would eat all the crops, left handed people would take over the world and the country would explode. None of which happened…. but you know what did happen when the anti-miscegenation laws were repealed? Two People, United States Citizens, regardless of their race or ethnicity -who loved each other and who wanted to build a life and family together were finally able to do so in this country without fear of not being treated equally under the law. And here’s the really cool thing…..gay marriage will be no different- because gay Americans only want the same thing- to marry the person they love, build a life and family together and not be afraid of not having the same exact and equal rights that any other American citizen has. Which is how it should be.
@whawell:disqus
Why won’t you answer questions on why you’re not out to ban marriage from couples who are infertile (by choice or by nature)?
You’re a solid hypocrite.
I’ve answered that question already, but I will restate my answer. I am not out trying to ban marriage for infertile couples because there is no need to. Couples who marry have never been questioned as to their ability to procreate in order to marry. It was assumed they likely would do so, and as a matter of fact, they have been procreating for the most part. Look, if gay couples really feel the need to have their relationships endorsed, then they should look no further than the gay community that welcomes their lifestyle. Churches endorse marriages between a man and a woman in areas of the world where there is no civil marriage institution. So why can’t the gay community do the same if wanting to retain one’s gay relationship is so important to them?
You accused me of hypocrisy. My dictionary defines hypocrisy as ” the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.” Now that I have answered your question can you tell me what moral standards or beliefs of mine I am not conforming with? Keep in mind my concern is and remains with the following: that children be provided with the best possible environment to be raised and nurtured. That environment begins with their natural parents. The institution of civil marriage was created expressly to help promote that most favorable environment with the knowledge that relationships do not always succeed.
Supporters of gay marriage want to change the definition of marriage so that marriage is all about retaining formed bonds of any type. It’s purpose would be disconnected with the procreation and well being of children, which of course I oppose for the sake of children.
Then you are indeed a hypocrite. If it’s “all about the children” (which legally is a lie) then there is no different between an infertile couple marrying and a gay couple.
Churches have NO BEARING whatsoever on the civil contract of marriage. The contract is needed, a church is not. Again, in legal terms, you lie. This is America, not parts of the world where the contract is not needed.
Yes… you are a hypocrite, claiming marriage is for procreation only (which is also a lie), yet do not wish to ban infertile couples from marrying. Hypocrisy at it’s finest. The “moral standard” is that you keep bellyaching about marriage being all about procreation (again, a lie) and since gay couples can’t procreate, they must be excluded, yet not KNOWINGLY infertile couples. Hypocrisy.
Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, that in Maine I can get standing on a platform above a pile of burning buybulls while urinating on a statue of Jesus, performed by a lowly notary… NO religion is necessary in ANY way.
And again you come back to procreation (not necessary) yet don’t want to ban KNOWINGLY infertile couples… my god I’ve never seen such blatant hypocrisy lied about with a straight face.
Look, I will end this discussion since you are obviously attributing statements to me that are not mine and breaking the rules of permissible posting – as you should know, name calling for one is not permissible.
PS: This comment and your comment will be flagged in order to draw the moderator’s attention to your misconduct and in order to request that your comment be censored.
Name calling? I call you no names… I point out your hypocrisy.
You say don’t ban infertile people from marrying, but ban gay people cuz they can’t have kids.
Hypocrite (it’s a title you’ve earned, not a name)… massive, drooling, knuckle-dragging hypocrite.
LOL!
It’s a silly distinction though. Whether it’s phrased as “you’re a hypocrite” or “you’re engaging in hypocrisy” what remains is that you’re discriminating against your neighbors and holding a particular group to a higher standard than others for no concrete reason. Censor that all you want, but what you’re doing is as clear as daylight.
and I flag you for your dishonesty and your pomposity…
For some reason, my response here was not recorded when it was posted. But I will try to answer your question once again, although more briefly.
I am not trying to ban marriage for infertile couples. There is no need to. In the past the state has not made a fertility test a requirement because it assumed most couples would procreate. That assumption cannot be made for gay couples who can never procreate. That said, the state’s assumption has proven correct as most heterosexual couples do procreate to this day.
As to your charge of hypocrisy, my dictionary defines hypocrisy as “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.” I have never stated that couples should pass a fertility test in order to marry. If I had, then your accusation might have some merit. What I have stated is that state endorsement of couple relationships need to be limited to heterosexual couples since same-sex couples do not have the ability to procreate under any circumstances. With that, if you still wish to accuse me of hypocrisy, then please tell me specifically what value or belief I am pretending to hold. Otherwise, your change amounts to name calling, which is prohibited in this venue.
Infertile couples (especially those who have become so because they want no children) are NO DIFFERENT than gay couples.
It is hypocrisy to call to ban one and not the other.
And please show me where procreation is necessary for marriage in law. Remember, your petty mythology is not needed. It is a civil contract.
I will say this… I like your stubbornness and lack of rational application of law. It will insure your loss.
See the Prop 8 transcript and Lawrence v. Texas for details.
You’re saying gays shouldn’t have marriage rights because they can’t procreate. That’s the standard. So if you don’t apply that standard to straight couples who can’t or won’t procreate, then yes, that is hypocrisy.
Thank you. I didn’t think it was that complicated.
And unfortunately they’ll ignore the logic and just pop up again another day, spewing the same nonsense.
It’s really obvious that all this is is a gut reaction towards gay people. They have to come up with weird logic and reasoning in order to make themselves feel better about their desire to discrimination. So that why we have to sit here and listen to procreation complaints or theories about dog marriage. Why we have to listen to pathetic distinctions as to why gay people are sinners but eating shellfish is fine.
These aren’t real arguments, it’s just what they tell themselves so they can feel all right.
Gee that’s odd I have several friends ( 6 to be exact )who are lesbians and who all have children…..via sperm bank…..don’t need an actual male….just a sperm bank and viola children who are beautiful and are amazing people…..all who love their mother(s) just like any other kids do……you apparently think that being gay is ‘unnatural’ well so is heart surgery, vaccines, combustible engines, eye glasses, computers, phones, etc, etc etc, etc…..our whole world is ‘unnatural’ just admit that you are someone who dislikes others for not being just like you- a white, male, christian -aka a bigot- and that’s not name calling- it is what it is. Bigotry is defined as: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance…..tah dah!!!
Nature has design opposite sexes for good reasons. They complement each other physically, mentally, and emotionally for the sake of procreation and the raising and nurturing of children. That’s fact. I didn’t make this up. Did mother nature make a mistake? I doubt it.
I can see a lot of name calling going on just from the responses I am getting. It shows some people are not willing to play by the rules of good behavior, and certainly not by the rules clearly spelled out for posting in this venue. It also shows they have no real argument.
When hypocrisy as blatant and ugly as yours is shoved in our faces, why not call you a hypocrite?
It’s NOT about procreation or you’d ban the infertile from marrying… the fact you think that somehow different marks you as a massive hypocrite.
I’m not the only one who sees it here hon.
Sorry whawell but prejudice+intolerance= bigotry……..I guess you can label it ‘name calling’ but with all do respect…..your opinion to refuse equal rights to fellow Americans is clearly not done out of benevolence but rather malevolence…….gay Americans are just as American as any other American……they pay taxes, fight and die serving in the military for this country, follow all the same rules and laws as any other American does…..yet being an American and all those other things are still not good enough for people like you simply because they are gay. Do share how gay people getting married will take away from your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness anymore than anyone else getting married would? Gay marriage won’t -anymore than when the anti-miscegenation laws were repealed and the scared bigots were sure that blacks and whites getting married would ruin the sanctity of marriage and destroy this country. This is all about fear and ignorance plain and simple. Not nature because if that were actually the case- ‘mother nature’ apparently made gay people as well……
Oh and just to add an interesting twist- We have some 450,000+ children in foster care in this country- due to the people who CAN procreate having children (NOT gay people) and the heterosexual people who have their children removed from their care are NOT FIT to care for said offspring….let’s be frank shall we….any two heterosexual morons can reproduce that alone does not make them qualified to be parents anymore than being able to get married does…..an let us not forget the divorce rate in this country…….all brought to you by the opposite sex marriage folks…..failing miserably all the way around…..it’s good to have goals I guess…….pfffffft.
DOMA Ruled UnconstitutionalThe national law that declared marriage as a union between one man and one woman, the Defense of Marriage Act, was declared unconstitutional Thursday. The ruling, by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, sets the stage for DOMA to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court—which could lead to federal approval of same-sex marriages. The court noted that if the 1996 law had remained intact, then couples who are legally wed in Massachusetts can be denied benefits elsewhere.