Turn the page
Does Gov. Paul LePage, after every newsworthy gaffe, dig himself deeper? At first he refused to apologize (to Jewish people, to IRS employees) for likening the Internal Revenue Service to Hitler’s Gestapo. Now he has, according to the July 13 BDN, apologized privately to the director of the Jewish Community Alliance of Southern Maine and promised a public apology in his radio address.
He has also, in an interview with the Vermont alternative weekly newspaper Seven Days, said the IRS is headed in the same direction as the WWII German secret police. We have been robbed of “an awful lot of freedom because we are now going to be told what we have to do.” He adds, “Never in the history of our country have we been told that we have to do something, particularly buy something from the commercial market.”
Never? During WWI, WWII and the Vietnam War, many men entered the military only because their draft number had come up. Whether it interfered with their family responsibilities or education or goals in life, they had to learn to fight and then do so. Registration for the draft still exists; the government needs only to reinstate conscription.
Health insurance is hardly affordable now. The Affordable Care Act will make insurance more affordable and include assistance to help people buy it. Why would anyone object? On general principles? Why shouldn’t one’s general principles include the value of contributing to a system that benefits everyone?
Ann Fogg
Monroe
Say no to Davita
EMMC and our community will lose local control and governance of our dialysis clinics if Davita comes to Bangor. Davita’s “one-stop shopping” will also suck needed revenue from regional retail pharmacies, laboratory and other supportive services into distant Davita coffers. Davita’s priority is billable seconds, minutes and hours. Patients and their outcomes are secondary to profits. Time is money.
It takes time to resolve patient safety/quality of care issues. Stories of harm and dismissal of five real patients (of thousands) were presented at the DHHS CON hearing July 10. The stories were characterized as “anecdotal” by EMMC’s vice CMO. I personally spoke with every one of those patients. Offers to connect EMMC with them were refused.
No EMMC patients or family members were present. Three spouses of EMMC dialysis patients told me they didn’t know anything about the hearing. Hearing information wasn’t given to the people who will be most affected by this financial transaction.
Although I no longer work for EMMC, I remain loyal. I have trusted and respected colleagues and friends at EMMC. I use EMMS/EMHS services. When Davita publicly attacked EMMC outcome data, it made me angry. Who validated Davita’s data? There is a stark difference between the Davita “sales pitch” data and their California outcome data and inspection survey results.
Don’t allow the co-opting and corruption of our local dialysis clinics and staff. We can keep our Maine integrity and continue to improve and progress without Davita.
Kathy Day, RN
Patient Safety Activist
Bangor
Taxing comments
Is our governor aware “taxing” or “penalizing” an individual for something one does not have or chooses not to have is neither novel nor new. For as long as I can remember, the IRS “taxes” or “penalizes” one who is not married and/or chooses not to have children.
Gerald Berlin
Mount Desert
Protect the aging
Anne Head’s spot-on article in your Monday edition regarding senior financial abuse is a timely reminder to those who are obliged to protect aging loved ones.
The vulnerable elderly are society’s low-hanging fruit, easily plucked by scheming, grasping hands.
Dick Tokarz
Lincoln
Outdoor orientation
It was with interest that I read the article on canoe camping cooking by Matthew LaRoche. Has this man never heard of a Dutch oven? With 14 years of camping with my Girl Scouts, another 10 with my husband and his Boy Scouts (he used to say I was the best piece of camping equipment he had) and a number of other trips with College of the Atlantic students on Outdoor Orientation Program trips on the Allagash, I cannot imagine having done them without a Dutch oven that comes in both a cast iron and a cast aluminum form.
No problem with the first on a canoe trip! I have made everything from yeast bread at 4,000 feet in Wyoming to popovers at day camp on MDI. With reliable wood often at a premium, charcoal briquettes make control even more precise.
We started with what we called a “flour barrel” — essentially a homemade biscuit mix which we stored in a covered bucket. (For longer trips we used a joint compound bucket.) With the addition of a little sugar, some spices, a little molasses in a tight plastic container and a little more plain flour, we made pancakes, biscuits, doughnuts, cobblers, gingerbreads, coffee cakes and more.
The flour barrel and the Dutch oven made numerous GSA trips and BSA Matagamon trips as well as family trips. It sure beat dragging around a reflector baker that is way less than satisfactory. And, oh yes, my senior Girl Scouts and I made Silver Palate’s raspberry chicken one night on a Down East lake.
Kathy Suminsby
Northeast Harbor
Civil right
Anti-gay marriage letters are so filled with vitriol and closeted closed-mindedness. First of all, I ask that we use the term “same-gender” instead of “same-sex”; anti-same-gender people seem to love the total sexual connotation. Same-gender people are not merely sexual beings; they are U.S. citizens who are partners, children, parents, brothers, sisters, neighbors, workmates of all persuasions, and participants of all other aspects of American society.
They pay taxes, too, but where’s the total inclusion in American society? All humans, no matter their sexuality, deserve respect and civil rights. But, this issue IS about civil rights, intolerance, bigotry and out-of-state contributions.
Gay marriage is only a religious issue if you make it one (totally made up to cause controversy). Religious dogma (from a book rewritten a few times to fill the needs of the writers) precludes rational discourse. Who in their right mind would want dogmatic religious interference in their marriage, anyway? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” rings true in a truly democratic, diverse, inclusive and forgiving society.
Ah, yes, it is a civil rights issue if you don’t have those civil rights.
Jackie Freitas
Friendship
Ann – Ironic that your last name seems to fit where your head is. You’re comparing apples and oranges when you compare the draft to the mandate for health care insurance. The draft was created to ensure the country had enough able-bodied troops to defend it in the event of a war or threat to our freedoms. The health care mandate is a violation of our freedoms, even if the Supreme Court said it’s only a tax. But, your biggest mistake in your letter is actually believing that the ACA will bring down costs and improve the system. Ain’t gonna’ happen.
Jackie – You’re letter screams intolerance and bigotry. Then you cut down the Bible, after which you quote from it. I’d say your letter is “filled with vitriol and closeted closed-mindedness.” But, that’s just my opinion.
It’s not intolerant to refuse to accept intolerance itself. So rejecting the claim that gay people don’t deserve equal rights isn’t the definition of bigotry. You’re simply trying to turn things around and it’s childish. When gay people are fighting for the same rights you already have, you don’t get to call them bigots. You’re the one maintaining the position that they’re less than.
All Americans have the same rights. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a chosen lifestyle, therefore what they’re asking for is special rights. I’m not for special rights.
Nope. The faulty, incorrect premise of of “chosen lifestyle” defeats your argument as illogical.
That’s a lie. We could have kept the ban on interracial marriage with the logic you’re using. Everyone has the same rights, you just have to marry within your race. Just choose not to fall in love with someone of a different race — that’s all.
Gay people don’t fall in love with someone of the opposite sex. You’re asking them to go against the very nature of marriage in order to protect marriage? Please get real and get honest. There is nothing special about being treated equally.
EJ you choose to be Christian, how would you like it, if some kept you from that choice.
I don’t believe, that homosexuality is a choice, but so what if it is. This is the United State of America, you have no right to stop a life style that doesn’t hurt you, and is none of your business!.
As a Christian, a choice I made, I don’t ask for special rights. And I live with the slings and arrows that come with my choice. It’s about time that homosexuals bucked up and chose to live with the slings and arrows that come with their lifestyle choice. Take the offer of civil unions and accept that as an acceptable compromise. Leave marriage between one man and one woman, just the way God set it up in the Garden of Eden.
More hogwash. Just what “special rights” are we asking for?
How can you sit there and talk about a secular matter such as civil unions and not acknowledge that civil marriage also is a legal concept? Your religious “marriage” has ZERO to do with civil “marriage.”
Is there something in the water in Maine? I think there must have been an Agent Orange leak some years back. Why cannot people grasp Law 101?
Actually you ARE asking for special rights and considerations. Now don’t get all huffy, let me explain. You are asking for the same “spacial rights and considerations married hetros already enjoy. That will leave those of us who are single out here in no special-rights” land all alone.
Someone once told me that married couples have access to 114 tax exemptions which single people do not enjoy. Sounds like a “special right” to me.
I trust you are jesting…
Well, allow me to clarify. “We want the same rights as other straight married couples which include 114 special rights not enjoyed by unmarried people.”
The difference, of course, is that straight single people have the option to legally marry and obtain these special rights. Gay single people do not have the option to legally marry.
But you CAN marry, Just not the people you want to marry. Which makes you the same as me who doesn’t want to marry anyone even though I have the “right” to do so.
The old, “a gay man can marry any woman argument”, eh? Well then, I don’t see why we need interracial marriage, I mean, a black man can marry any black woman he wants to, I don’t see why they need special rights.
Your self-victimization is obvious. You throw the sling and arrows yourself. There is nothing special about being treated equally. There would be no need for civil unions if you thought everyone was equal. You call that a compromise, so therein itself you admit that gays don’t have equal rights.
Again, not a choice.
“…I don’t ask for special rights.”
sign my petition to remove tax free status from religion, EJ?
Talk to the Deacon at your church about relinquishing that “not special right” why don’t you?
and if marriage isn’t a special right to Christians, why are they the ones fighting hardest to limit it a man and a woman?
EJ put the persecuted Christian BS on the shelf along with the special rights crap because that is all it is BS and crap. It is none of your business who someone else marries. And as far as your offer of civil unions go who in hell are you to be negotiating someone else’s civil rights away. I was born and grew up in a family who believed in God the Father, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit (Ghost))we attended church every single Sunday as well as a few more days during the year. That is also the way our 3 children were brought up as well. The God I know is an all knowing and loving and merciful God. Frankly I take offense as I am sure many other religious people do with your using God as a means to conceal your bigotry, mean spiritedness and hatred for others simply because they do not share the same physical attractions that you do. We are all God’s children and we are supposed to love our neighbor. You go on to judge others which is supposed to be something that is left up to God and God alone. You call yourself a Christian but yet the things you say and the way you come across on these boards most certainly does not come close to resembling the Christianity that I and I am sure a lot if not most others were taught. The last I heard was that our Savior was born in Bethleham which is one very long walk from Aroostook County, Maine and His name was Jesus Christ and not EJ Parsons
Jesus never once said, “Go and continue in your sins.” He repeatedly said, “Go and sin no more.”
It would be worth your while to read 1 Corinthians, chapter 7.
By the way, your diatribe is a blessing to me, because it shows me that I am on the right side of the issue. “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.” Matthew 5:11 (NIV)
But Jesus is not our civil law… in fact, he’s rather meaningless in the discussion, except for the “special rights” you get for choosing to think of him as a magic sky daddy.
Regardless of the subject at hand, I truly hope that you change your mind about Christ before you pass on. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And if you knew Him, He would mean something in this discussion.
Meaningless drivel brought on by your specially protected “choice”.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
I went to the link, searched on “Christian”, and came up empty.
Search for “religion” EJ… after all, that’s all christianity is.
Why are you acting so dumb today?
Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97
Civil rights act of 1968: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968 http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/civilrightsera/ExhibitObjects/CivilRightsAct1968.aspx
Do you need anything else EJ?
ALL point to special rights for believers in various sky daddies.
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97
Civil rights act of 1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/civilrightsera/ExhibitObjects/CivilRightsAct1968.aspx
Do you need anything else EJ?
He said, Christ is not part of our civil law.
You know EJ in your warped way of looking at things I am sure you take it as a blessing. Oh and sense you are the self proclaimed expert on what God wants perhaps you could give me the name of one person who died and you know for a fact was refused entrance into Heaven because they were a homosexual.
You mistake the disagreement with your personal beliefs with the teachings of Christ, IMO. 4mermainer was not disrespecting Christ nor His teachings…. but pointing out that you are not Him and in 4mermaine’s opinion (my interpretation) you do not exemplify Him.
But you have special rights in the civil rights act, because of your choice.
Thus, the whole choice argument is moot.
So the special rights churches get in terms of tax exempt status don’t exist?
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97
Civil rights act of 1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/civilrightsera/ExhibitObjects/CivilRightsAct1968.aspx
Do you need anything else EJ?
Choosing to be a Christian does not relate to the homosexual “choice” you advocate (with no basis in fact).
Please what slings and arrows have you personally had to live with ….. physical threats, physical violence, threats on your life or loss of it, threats of loosing your livelihood or housing or loss of it, threats of loosing custody of children or loss of children based on your chosen Christian lifestyle?
PS – I have not heard the major groups or organizations who oppose marriage equality nationwide offer civil unions, only vehemently working to deny any legal recognition. If you have knowledge of any offerings please share them.
You know, I have had about as much as I can stand of this idiotic argument about a “chosen lifestyle.” What absolute utter, bilge water hogwash! I have heard it from every nimrod from here to Lugnuts, Mississippi, and back, who couldn’t find his rear-end with two hands and an instruction manual.
I am 57. I have been gay all my life. I don’t remember it being any other way. I did not sit down when I was 7 years old and say, “Hey, I think I’ll be gay. Yeah, that makes sense!”
Just when did you choose to be straight?
If you sat down and chose to be straight, you are probably some uptight, ultra-religious, homophobe, worried about what society thinks about him, and so far back in the closet, you don’t even realize it yourself and you are poster child for delusional disorder.
Bury this argument once and for all. The earth revolves around the sun. The moon reflects sunlight. You don’t choose to be gay. Three facts you can bank on.
I think, maybe Mr. EJ chose heterosexually, so he think you chose to be gay.
The earth does revolve around the sun. The moon reflects sunlight. But that last one has not been scientifically proven yet. And since it has not been scientifically proven, I have every right to believe otherwise, whether you like it or not. So, buck up and live with the fact that not everyone thinks like you do.
And, while you’re at it, read through my comments on this subject. I have no hatred for homosexuals, and have repeatedly stated that it is their right to live as they choose. Don’t let my difference of opinion ruin your day.
By the way, what you got against Lugnuts, Mississippi?
On the third one, my “faith” tells me it’s true. Just as your “faith” tells you whatever you believe is true. And, while science may not yet have proven all this, that does not mean it is not true. Science will get there. I checked my Gay Agenda Bible and it said so, so there.
I never said you hated homosexuals. Your attitude toward them reminds me of George Wallace and his beliefs about blacks back on June 11, 1963.
As far as Lugnuts goes, it is vying for a sister-city membership with Maine, seeing how in 2009 the two areas shared so much in common.
EJ there is no scientific proof that being heterosexual is a choice or innate but the vast majority of heterosexuals will tell you they didn’t choose to be attracted to opposite gender people, they just are and always have been. Do you tell them they are wrong, that they made a choice just as you did or do you accept what they state as the truth?
EJ assuming you are correct when you say that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. So what? The bigger question is what gives you or me the right to tell someone else who they can fall in love with? Marriage is supposed to be about two people who love each other joining together to further that love. I know if someone had tried to take away my right to marry the most wonderful woman in the world and the person I love more then life itself I would have fought tooth and nail. What gives you the right to pick who someone falls in love with EJ?
“Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a chosen lifestyle…”
if this were true, and it’s most certainly not, why would people choose to set themselves up for a future of ridicule and marginalization from a whole segment of society that regards itself as the moral gatekeepers of our country? why would Charlie Howard choose a lifestyle that invites and incites people into killing him?
and why would all those pastors, priests, ministers, etc who have been exposed for having gay relationships CHOOSE to commit acts and that will allegedly consign them to hell in the religions to which they dedicated their lives?
wouldn’t that be like a neuro surgeon choosing to cut off his own thumbs or something?
Woah, woah, you’re using “logic’ now, something that anti-gay marriage people are notoriously bad with.
All Americans include everyone from northern Canada to Cape Horn. I am assuming you meant United States citizens.
All U.S. citizens DO NOT have the same rights. Although “citizens” get to vote at age 18, and can serve in the military run for some political offices, and sign contracts, they are forbidden from drinking alcohol until age 21. A citizen must be 30 to be a Senator, or 25 to be a Representative. You must wait till age 35 before becoming President. Those people who die before the age limits do not get to participate.
Most U.S. citizens are entitled to a Representative, a Senator and a Governor. U.S. citizens living in the District of Columbia are not so represented.
There are no women players in the N.F.L. There are No women players in major league baseball. Do you suspect that there are no women who want to play baseball or football professionally? There are no men in the League of women voters, and no “League of men voters.” There are no women priests in the Catholic Church.
Then you have the “God created differences” there are retarded folks, disabled folks, and mentally ill folks (some who are bared from voting by law, even here in Maine) who will never be able to do much of what the rest of us take for granted.
I have often agreed with you, but This “all people as equals” bull gets in my craw.
I believe I said that all people have the same rights.
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97
Civil rights act of 1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/civilrightsera/ExhibitObjects/CivilRightsAct1968.aspx
Do you need anything else EJ?
No, those who have decided to have a religion get special rights.
I believe that you should go back and look at your own comment: “All Americans have the same rights.”
But they do not. As outlined earlier some people have rights and some do not.
EJ, why is your religion, a “chosen lifestyle”, worthy of “special rights” that you KNOW you get.
“All Americans have the same rights. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a chosen lifestyle, therefore what they’re asking for is special rights. I’m not for special rights.”
All Americans have the same rights. Religion, on the other hand, IS a chosen lifestyle, therefore what they’re asking for is special rights. I’m not for special rights.
You want the special right to use your Bible as a way to limit the lives of others. You believe that your religion puts you above anyone else because your “special.” You want the special right to impose your special religious beliefs on other Americans. You think it your special right to medal into other people’s lives. You believe it is your special obligation to judge and condemn others.
Heterosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, therefore they are receiving special rights when they choose to enter into a civil marriage contract.
So what turns you on is something you choose? Hardly. It is all bio-chemical. Do a little study of our God-given sexual biology and I think you will find that to be true. Any male who has been through adolescence can remind you of the power of that bio-chemical drive.
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97
Civil rights act of 1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/civilrightsera/ExhibitObjects/CivilRightsAct1968.aspx
Do you need anything else EJ?
EJ, homosexuality is a sexual attraction between persons of the same gender. It would seem that you can’t understand that. A person’s lifestyle…mine, yours…is affected in part by his or her sexual orientation. And while a lifestyle is chosen, the sexual orientation is not. How could it be?
Special rights? That’s a buzz-phrase to scare those who can’t think it through. There are no laws covering gay people that don’t include straight people, as well. Why does this fact elude you? Everyone has a sexual orientation, and it should be against the law to discriminate based on that.
And that “screams intolerance and bigotry”? You say her letter is filled with what she accuses SSM opponents of saying, but I for one don’t see that. All too often the anti-SSM letters and comments are filled withvitriol and closed mindedeness, and worse. Although you’re more polite than most, you too often exhibit these traits.
Jackie, first, I’m voting yes on this. But, no, it is same-sex marriage. Gender is a state of being, sex is a biological set of facts. A transgendered person who has not transitioned but marries someone of their same biological sex does not have a “same gender marriage.”
It is people of the same biological sex marrying each other. It really is that simple. We do bar the men whose gender identity is female from marrying men and women who gender identify as men from marrying women. Your term does not encompass these folks but “same sex marriage does.”
Jackie makes a good point though about the sex wording. It’s the same reason they say homosexual instead of gay. They try to bring up the sex aspect and minimize gay people by insinuating this is all simply about sex. It’s more than that.
I’m not sure I agree. I know transgender people and they are not gay and, the one I know in a relationship, is in a relationship with a woman. These two biological women are not the same gender. One is gender male and one is gender female. If we accept Jackie’s suggestion, then you have excluded their relationship.
I really don’t think the folks that matter, those who will vote or may be persuaded to vote yes, are in anyway affected by saying “same sex marriage”. I don’t think those who are “hell bent” on preventing these couples from having their relationships recognized will care what you call it either. Moreover, you have no hope of convincing them to change the phrase to something they will just say is PC.
I don’t think people are focused on what these partners are doing in their bedrooms. No rational person cares about that. Focus on the positives and leave these distractions out of the mix.
But that’s the point — constantly refering to sex and sexualizing gay people is a distraction. They’re not having sex 24/7 — I assume they have as much sex as straight people. It’s not what their world revolves around, but constantly referring to them as homosexuals makes it seem that way.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but heterosexual or homosexual only brings to my mind who you are attracted to, nothing more. I’m not going to use the term “same gender marriage”.
Well it has sex right in the word so to me that brings up connotations of sex.
Of course, we could just go the clinical way and refer to marriage as “heterosexual marriage” if they are ever insistent on labeling mine as “homosexual marriage.” Of course, I could also use the shock quotes: heterosexual “marriage.”
I actually have seen on the NOM site, the acronym: SS”M” implying that a marriage by two homosexuals is not really a “marriage.”
Part of my retirement relaxation plan is to go to the bakery once a month, pick up a rack of of about 20 or so banana-creme pies with extra nuts, and travel around to all the people who have teed me off over the years (Anita Bryant, Fred Phelps, Brian Brown) and let them have it. Well, of course, that is just a fantasy, but a darn good one.
Throw one for me, Chuck, fantasy or not :)
“One of these days, Alice! One of these days! POW! Right in the kisser!”
Go ahead. As before, I think that the antis are obsessed with sex (and of course that is only OK if between heterosexual married couples for purposes of procreation only).
I would disagree. The most rabid anti-SSMs are very much concerned with what goes on in the bedroom as if that were the only reason to get married. However, they tend to concentrate on male-male relationships which makes one wonder…
Oh, there is no wondering here…
I could not begin to tell you the number of “straight” single and married men I have run into over the years who were “drunk and can’t remember a thing about last night,” or “their girlfriend/wife is away and …,” or “I’ve always been curious…”. This is a staple for gay comedians usually with the religious guy who wants to first pray “for the sins I am ABOUT to commit.” It always gets lots of laughs which means the audience is all too familiar with it.
This probably is why we are so good at rolling our eyes back in our heads.
Jackie: Then, let us call it like it is–homosexual/lesbian marriages–nothing “gay” about it.
Jackie and others that support same sex marriage. If you want to see these marriages become the law of the land, stop posting letters like yours. You do not have to convince all of those that voted against SSM last time. You only need a few percent from the middle.
I admit I voted against it last time. At the time it seemed to be shoved on us by an overzealous legislature. Over time, I have reevaluated my position. This is a civil institution, these are loving families, and they and their children deserve and require the full benefits, protections and responsibilities of the law. When these relationships don’t work out, we have to protect the children and spouses through divorce court just like everyone else.
The people who really are so entrenched in their positions that you will never move them are not your audience. Don’t insult the people who can be persuaded by argument. Insulting them will not bring them to your side. Win by staying positive, give the arguments that make sense from a societal point of view. We don’t need to move many people very far.
Again, I want to stress, if you want to send in letters to the editor, focus your argument on why it is the right thing to do and why we actually need it. As soon as you start name calling, those who you might win over stop listening and walk away.
I didn’t detect any name-calling in the Freitas letter (maybe some in others). Most of the name calling I see, especially in these comments is by the SSM (SGM if you wish) opponents (along with misguided and even non-factual opinions)
Really? I understood her to say they were vitriolic, closeted, close-minded, intolerant, bigots. All words from her letter and I’m relatively certain she was not referring to the pro-marriage side.
You’re adding a lot to the letter that isn’t there. She is denouncing the hate-motivated letters that have appeared in the paper before. She didn’t call anyone a bigot.
She wrote, “Anti-gay marriage letters are so filled with vitriol and closeted closed-mindedness.” She additionally stated, “But, this issue IS about civil rights, intolerance, bigotry and out-of-state contributions.” She points to “Anti-gay marriage letters” without qualification, such as “many”, “some”, “a majority” or “often”. She further states that the issue is “civil rights”, obviously if you are pro-gay marriage, and “intolerance and bigotry”, obviously if you are against.
I’m pro-gay marriage and I see no other way to read this. The unavoidable implication that one must draw from Jackie’s words are that if you write a letter in opposition you are a close-minded, vitriolic, closeted, intolerant, bigot. This is obvious because, “this issue IS about civil rights, intolerance, bigotry and out-of-state contributions.”
No. She did not make a sweeping generalization. She pointed out that the anti-gay marriage letters have anti-gay and intolerance language in them. That’s not a comment on those who hold that believe on the issue, it’s a comment on the letters and those that write them. I think you can hold that position without being vitriolic — obviously. It doesn’t make her a bigot (or whatever) for denouncing that poor and hateful behavior.
I respectfully disagree and will leave it at that.
She maybe should have said “most letters” but can you find any that didn’t. Then again, the antis had to tone down their rhetoric in order to get their letters published. Even with the guidelines, a lot of vitriol, much of it false, appears in these commnets.
Thank you for your intelligent research and change of mind and in advance, for your vote. I thank you, my partner thanks you, and our children thank you. God Bless.
EJ Parsons on “homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle”: when will those who oppose gay marriage give up this nonsense? There is not a shred of scientific evidence to confirm that gender preference is simply a choice. It’s rather tiresome to try to hide your hatred of gays and lesbians by this pretense. And as for rights, your implicit argument that therefore gay marriage is a “special right” is equally tiresome by now.
I could not agree with you more. Ask any heterosexual if they thought they could choose to be gay and they will certainly tell you that they cannot imagine it. By saying it is a lifestyle choice is demean the closest relationship that these couples will ever have in their lives. It reduces it to a choice similar to “I think I’ll buy the blue shirt rather than the red.”
These couples are pledging their lives to each other, EJ and the rest should at least give that the respect it deserves.
First of all, I don’t hate anyone. Secondly, there is no scientific evidence that supports a gay gene. So, I have to go by my beliefs in that it has to be a choice. Trouble is, you can’t prove me wrong and I can’t prove you wrong.
So why does your claim get to be the default? You’re making a claim so you have to back it up — you can’t. Is this another one of your double standards? Everyone has to present exhaustive proof (that you’ll deny regardless) and you don’t have to show any evidence?
You chose to be heterosexual EJ? One day you got up and said, “Sheesh, I could go either way. I guess I’ll choose to love women sexually.” Ya, right. There was no choice at all, was there? Unless, of course, you are a closet gay and actually chose to love females instead.
I accepted the way God made me. Homosexuals reject the way God made them. And that’s their right, because the only power we have as humans, is the power to choose.
You have no proof that gay people aren’t simply just accepting how they were made.
God? The one you invented? The mean-spirited one? That is not the God I know.
That view may spring from your religious dogma but it has no basis in fact. No gay gene required, it’s much more complicated than that. Still a minority, but a significant number of people are born with indefinite gender identity, sexual preference, etc. I probably don’t have all of the definitions of the various conditions and statuses correct, but to maintain that God creates only men and only women is wishful thinking. To think otherwise that your God (that is, your concept of God), considers those born outside your rigid, either/or concept, to be non-human. Is that really your problem?
Ah, but that IS how God made them.
Mr. Parsons, you will find that many gays and lesbians have rejected living a lie (entering into a heterosexual lifestyle as historically expected and done or denying their natural attraction to same-gender individuals) and have indeed accepted themselves as God made them…..
Yet.
EJ you say that there is no scientific evidence that supports a gay gene. Would you be kind enough to enlighten me on where I could find the scientific evidence that supports a straight gene please.
If “there is no scientific evidence that supports a gay gene” is there evidence that supports a “straight” gene? Because if there is no evidence of a “straight” gene that means heterosexuality is a “choice” too. So EJ, when did you decide to be “straight”?
EJ there is mounting evidence in the genetic research field that shows a genetic marker (not a whole gene) that determines sexuality. This is solid science, backed by decades of research and testing. God is an idea in a book that has no basis in fact.
EJ If it is choice or not what matter does it make to you? If two people want to be together; live and let live. You should never try tp place your values on others. If you don’t want two same gender people to be together fine but don’t try to impose that belief on others.
I have not, nor would I, deny them the right to be together. I’m just against allowing them to change the meaning of traditional marriage. I have no problem with civil unions with rights equal to marriage. But, that’s not good enough to the radicals involved in this fight. The SSM supporters are akin to the “my way or the highway” group: no compromise.
There shouldn’t be compromise when it comes to equal rights.
But again, more of that hypocrisy from you. I don’t see you calling out the GOP in the Senate or the House when they refuse to compromise.
Yes, it isn’t good enough because it isn’t. There is no nationally recognized civil union policy that gives SS civil unions all the rights and privileges of marriage. I don’t recall what rights were extended to the previously more common Civil Law Marriages but I doubt they were as extensive either.
I have not, nor would I, deny them the right to be together. I’m just against allowing them to change the meaning of traditional marriage. I have no problem with civil unions with rights equal to marriage. But, that’s not good enough to the radicals involved in this fight. The interracial marriage supporters are akin to the “my way or the highway” group: no compromise.
There is no scientific evidence there is a God but you believe in Him.
The scientific evidence is all around, especially in the unexplainable. You just have to be willing to see it.
Sorry, EJP. Becasue there is no scientific evidence, there is no proof. Besides, we shouldn’t be trying to prove the existence of God anyway. Such efforts are probably the real definition of Original Sin (not the Augusinian one) and the real “forbidden fruit”.
Jackie,
Marriage. One man, one woman.
DRGuide,
Marriage. Two legally consenting adults of any gender combinationl.
FTFY.
Untrue… you’re behind.
Catch up please… it’ll keep you from feeling slighted when reality catches up with the rest of the nation.
I don’t understand why you’re so riled up. You know that eventually enough people in Maine will be beat down and the vote will go your way. And you know that Americans as a whole are tired of the kicking and screaming from the agenda drivers, and state by state your cause will win. When it does happen, special provisions will be enacted, just like what’s happening in the military, in order to pacify and protect. And, after SSM is in place, and we all know it will be one day, the next step in the agenda will kick into gear, the lawsuits will be filed against religious organizations and businesses in order to break their moral oppositions, and the debate will go on. The SSM crowd will never be satisfied.
Of course, that’s just my belief.
I’m not even concerned with the vote… this will all be settled in court, not in the court of public opinion.
I’m riled up because of the “special rights” argument… Religious folks, who use the argument against “choice” as a basis to continue discrimination, are violently hypocritical holding that stance.
They themselves have the VERY “special rights” they want to keep from others. That level of hypocrisy is sickening.
Religious organizations should never be forced to be involved with gay marriage (through ceremony or by virtue of property or location), but this idea that they should somehow keep “special rights” to discriminate against gay citizens in ways that are illegal to discriminate against them is just spoiled little whiny tantrums…
They should have NO protections not extend to ALL other citizens.
Most military’s in the world are open and affirming and have been for years. Many of my fmily members are military. Many of my gay friends are military. They are all reporting that it hasn’t changed a thing. You are looking for negative evidentce and when we look for bad we will find it. Jesus looked for good. Try it.
Your god would never have created homosexuality if s/he thought it wrong. God makes no mistakes right?
Adler, you are reading your prejudgements into what she wrote. Some of the letters I have read are, in fact, bigoted. That’s just a fact.
My dear EJ Parsons: you may not overtly hate gays, but your illogic does the trick. Of course it’s just a choice now, isn’t it? And homosexuals happily make that choice, and make at a specific date in their lives, and could easily switch to being heterosexual. What planet are you on? Go ahead and vote again against the basic rights of gays to marry in Maine. And feel accomplished. I almost feel sorry for you, but I feel infinitely more for my gay friends who, with your bigotry, would be deprived once again of any chance for the rights given to heterosexuals in Maine. No doubt you also deny evolution.
Remember, he can’t vote in Maine because he left Maine a while ago and lives in Florida. And yes, he’s on record as denying evolution, with equal (or more) lack of basis for his reasoning. Another reason it’s good he can’t vote in Maine.
Don’t forget that I don’t believe in global warming either.
EJ… please justify the “special rights” you get.
I want to know why you keep hollering about genes and whatnot when your choice destroys the need for such innate characteristics to those who get “special rights”.
Let me see….
The last time I filled out my income taxes, I didn’t see a box to check for Christian.
When I joined the military, I don’t remember getting any special treatment for being a Christian. I did get “Baptist” stamped on my dog tags to the enemy would know that they could torture or behead me if my religion didn’t meet with their criteria.
When I got my driver’s license, I didn’t get to ride in the Christian lane.
I’m not really sure what special rights you’re talking about. I’m not a church or religious organization, if that’s what your referring to.
There is no need for it. Read the text of the Civil Rights Act, EJ… it’s all there in black and white.
If you deny it, you’re just lying.
I know you’re smarter than this… the Act protects you (because of your choice to be religious) from discrimination in housing, jobs, and all that good stuff.
And you know it.
Quit acting stupid.
Weren’t you at one time on board with the idea of civil unions as a viable compromise? Seems I recall that you were. Have you moved to the uncompromising radical side, or are you still willing to compromise?
I still am… personally, I don’t care what it’s called.
However, to say it’s the religious people being attacked over this is just insane… it is the religious who try to stop domestic partnerships, civil unions, marriage….
ANYTHING.
Call it bologna for all I care, but expect the religious right to attack it anyway as “fake marriage” or whatever it is NOM’s calling it this week.
That was my point.
I’m glad I’m a Christian and not one of those “religious people”.
See EJ, it’s not how you view yourself and your religion… it’s how law defines it.
Christianity is nothing but a religion… and you get special rights because of it.
I can kick you out of a house I rent to you because you’re gay… can’t do it if you’re a christian.
That’s because of the special rights religious folks have…
Down here you can’t kick someone out of a house because they are gay. I do believe that under federal housing rules, you can’t do that in Maine either.
Wrong EJ… you can’t do it in Maine because of state law. The federal statutes do NOT cover sexual identity… that’s why the push is on from so many to pass ENDA.
However, at the federal level, your choice of religion is indeed protected.
Federal statutes (ie HUD, federal housing) include orientation and gender identity as of March 2012, however the State of Florida does not include orientation or gender identity in its statutes …. although some municipalities, local and county do.
So then what are you talking about “special rights” for gay people then? According to this rubric, they don’t have them.
You’re almost always inconsistent, except for the fact that you’re consistently hypocritical.
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97
Civil rights act of 1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/civilrightsera/ExhibitObjects/CivilRightsAct1968.aspx
Do you need anything else EJ?
Point granted (denial of global warming as you’ve often expressed) with possibly a little more basis than your denial of evolution.
I agree w/Ms Freitas, I imagine if U took the whole sexual connotation outta the picture, that the majority of the nay sayers would be ok w/same sex marriges..? In other words “sex” in the equation is out , but if they love each other, live as roommates, share bills, & only have sex w/a Male on a promiscuous basis, then that is more tolerable… Forget the fact that most religions won’t support cheating in a marriage.. It would seem the negative spin is put on by personal beliefs toward sexual norms not by the same gender issue…?
Jackie Frietas, gay marriage is NOT a a made-up issue for those who value where their souls will spend eternity. I am a Catholic. The Catholic Church teaches that which Jesus Christ taught his apostles. Since the apostles taught without any doubt that homosexual acts are mortally sinful, then we know that God does not approve of homosexual acts. If I vote in favor of gay marriage, I would be aiding and abetting the commission of homosexual acts, and that for me would be a mortal sin. If I did not repent of my vote before I died, then I would spend eternity in hell.
For those of you who do not believe in God, what I believe may be a non-issue to you. But what I believe means EVERYTHING to me, and I don’t want to jeopardize my chances of going to heaven when I die. And I don’t want to encourage anyone else to do something that may cause them to go to hell after they die. Same -sex marriage may mean EVERYTHING to you, but it goes against everything that I believe in.
I want all people to be saved when they die, including myself, of course. I know I’m going to have a hard enough time right now when I face Jesus Christ; I don’t need to add any more sins to my log book, especially serious ones. This is why gay marriage is a religious issue to many people. We are trying to cover our own butts, and we are trying to save yours as well.
Which reminds me of another point…
Not being Catholic, I understand that artificial birth control is a “mortal sin.” True?
Okay, if that is the case and the statistics indicate that 98% of the Catholic use, or have used, in their reproductive life cycles artificial birth control, wouldn’t that imply that 98% of the Catholics are going to spiral into the abyss of Hell for all Eternity, Amen?
Again, just curious.
Well, I am not completely ignorant of some of this. I looked up the on the internet for the usual list of escape clauses in the highly structured Catholic lifestyle. I found three thing that will get you out of a mortal sin, as follows:
1. You didn’t do it deliberately. For example, if you backed-up your car and killed a senior citizen but you didn’t do it on purpose, that’s a free pass, although killing someone normally would light you on fire in Hell. The key thing is you didn’t plan to kill the old guy.
2. You have to be contrite. That is, you are sorry for what you did.
3. You don’t repeat the offense.
Well, I see some problems. First off, the use of artificial birth control had to have been planned ahead. No one “accidentally” uses a condom or birth control pill. Oh, and goodness, no guy I know “accidentally” had a vasectomy. Strike one.
I am not seeing anyone very contrite of the 98% using the birth control because they keep on using it despite warnings from the Grand Poobah. Strike two.
And, finally, as they continue to use birth control, it seems to me they are repeating the offense. Strike three.
Game, set, match.
I realize this has nothing to do with SSM except for pointing out the hypocrisy of all these “mortal sins” of which you speak.
And, by the way, I will stick with the 98% number. As a kid in very French (read: Catholic) Waterville, my friends had something like 10 uncles and/or aunts. They were part of a family of maybe 5 siblings and that was considered large. These kids grew up and had 3 kids. Their kids grew up and now have 0, 1, or maybe 2. Now, I’m no reproductive specialist but I doubt there is any less between-the-sheets action today than there was in their grandparents’ day, so my guess is there is a fair amount of artificial birth control going on.
Just a guess.
But if that’s true and you are only concerned about sinners — why aren’t you working on legislative bans for other sins? Why do only gay people get your attention in this way and not, let’s say, people wanting/who have been divorced?
If I had my choice, abortion, contraception, divorce, and pornography would be illegal, as would be taking the Lord’s name in vain in film and commercial print. Please don’t feel that I am singling out the gay lifestyle.
Thank Science you aren’t in power then.
…..
You absolutely are. You are singling them out.
This isn’t a religious issue, it’s one of civil law. No mythology is required for civil marriage.
Simple fact.
If this is a matter of civil law, then civil unions should suffice. But, they won’t as long as the homosexual agenda has an opportunity to attack religion. And that’s the cold, hard truth.
If civil unions would suffice, fundies wouldn’t try to stop that as we have seen in EVERY state/municipality where they’ve been extended. It’s the religious attacking civil unions, EJ, not the other way around.
Cold hard truth is that marriage requires no specially protected religious choice.
The homosexual agenda, is they want, with their life partner, what you have with yours.
The word marriage does not belong to you, or any other person, religion, what ever you my think. Many things can be married together, not just a man and woman. A pair of 2×4’s can be married by putting a nail in them. Maybe we should put an end to that also, because it truly must be a sin.
Many gay people are religious, so your claim is obviously false and a disgusting smear at that.
You personally may be accepting of civil unions but the cold, hard truth is that those who argue against same-sex marriage predominantly based on religious beliefs and the use of the word marriage are actively fighting across the country against civil unions and domestic partnerships.
God condemns rape, not love. Those who are blessed to find someone to spend a lifetime with should be able to protect that life with civil marriage.
After all, the bible says far more in support of slavery than it does against homosexuality, but I don’t see anyone petitioning to hold slaves today.
For all the folks currently engaged in the “choice” argument, particularly those of you who stand behind your religion as you do so…
Religion is nothing more than a choice. Even so, it is given “special rights” through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is all one needs to look at to easily see that the idea that a trait must be somehow innate (such as genetic) to be protected under US civil law is absolute bunk.
Personally, I know I never made a choice… but at the end of the day, it simply does not matter. To argue the point is nothing more than a sign of desperation in an argument where those against gay marriage have no rational backing for their views… and they know it.
This is for EJ who is playing dumb today and refuses to acknowledge the “special rights” he gets because he has chosen to be religious.
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97
Civil rights act of 1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968
http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/naacp/civilrightsera/ExhibitObjects/CivilRightsAct1968.aspx
Do you need anything else EJ?
Now stop acting stupid… I know you’re smarter than that.
His comments are all about actively lying and spreading misinfromation.
And we need to be sure to call him out when he’s blatantly lying like he is regarding his “special rights”.
Then I’m calling you out on the fact that you agreed that civil unions would suffice as long as they had the benefits of marriage.
Call me out on it… I never said otherwise.
I said, and I say, it is the religious citizens attacking gay citizens, not the other way around, and their reaction to civil unions and domestic partnerships prove it.
Please, point out special rights that I have based on my choice to be a Christian. Being a Christian is a lifestyle choice and does not equate to being religious. All of your examples group religion with race, sex, and national origin.
That’s like asking where special rights are for a gay man as opposed to a gay woman… both are gay, just as both Islam and Christiantiy are religions (and and folks following either get “special rights”)….
Christianity is a lifestyile choice… it is a religion, and all religions get special rights.
Being christian is just one of many lifestyle choices open to folks who want religion.
You’re splitting hairs… horridly.
Christianity is a religion and is a choice… making your choice arguments all moot.
What a joke. You demand others answer your questions but you refuse to answer any yourself. More of that hypocrisy and double standards from you.
EJ’s been that way for all the years I’ve commented with him here…
He’s a very intelligent man, and we’ve had many personable conversations here, but this idea that protection for religion gives him no special rights is hysterical at best.
Jackie Freitas
Why are you so intolerant of and bigoted toward those whose religious beliefs and convictions lead them to not support same sex marriage?
And there happen to be a lot of us who put no weight at all on those religious arguments and still do not support same sex marriage. Many of us look at human history and have reached the conclusion that it is not in the long term interest of a society to condone and especially not to encourage same sex marriage.
There is a difference between tolerance of and condoning or even encouraging a behavior or lifestyle.
Civil marriage has nothing to do with your chosen mythology. Atheists wed all the time with no religious trappings.
The issue isn’t anyone being bigoted towards those with mythology, it’s those with mythology demanding to define treatment to citizens under civil law.
Keep your religion… it has nothing to do with civil marriage.
Thank you for not even reading what I wrote, never mind addressing my point.
Oh, I read it sweetcheeks…
“Why are you so intolerant of and bigoted toward those whose religious beliefs and convictions lead them to not support same sex marriage?”
That’s where your argument falls completely apart…
At no time did I say I supported the religious arguments against same sex marriage. But true tolerance requires I respect the right of others to hold those beliefs.
Why is it wrong for me to point out obvious intolerance and bigotry in someone’s opinion? You do it all the time.
Actually, I do get it. It is called a “double standard”.
Perhaps those who preach tolerance should try to practice it more. ( I know, progressives HATE that word preach),
We are not asking them to change their beliefs… not in any way.
There is no intolerance being directed at christians… their 1st amendment right is remaining unchanged and I will stand beside them to insure it stays that way.
There is no double standard, as nobody’s trying to keep anything from religious people, yet they ARE indeed trying to keep something from, and harm, gay citizens. The two aren’t even comparable.
I guess I’m curious as to how someone else’s marriage impacts you, someone else you don’t even know exists.
It does not impact me directly and I never claimed it did. But there are long term effects on society as a whole and I believe the negative consequences outweigh the benefits.
For comparison think about the long term effects of Johnson’s “war on poverty” vs the short term feel good benefits.
Please detail these negative consequences.
You can use ANY nation or state where gay marriage is a reality. Show us these “negative consequences”.
Not your rabid fear mind you, but ACTUAL consequences.
So what are those long term effects on society?
This is why: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2608
not allowing them to marry, will not stop them loving each other, or living together, so your point is moot.
My point is obviously over your head. I never addressed ” them loving each other, or living together”. I have no problem with either of those things.
your point, is not over my head. Your point is quite clear, and my point is you can’t stop it, homosexuals don’t need your blessing, and for the most part don’t want it. it’s time you realize, white men don’t run the world, anymore, and when they did, they didn’t do a very good of it.
And many more can look at human history and see that the people opposing same sex marriage are no better than the people who opposed legalizing interracial marriage, giving women the right to vote, and ending slavery.
This is so rich!
Now EJ is saying that being a “christian” isn’t granted special rights because it’s not a “religion”!
BWA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAA!!Can’t make this stuff up folks!
To Tedlick in his comment to wolfndeer. I have always responded to your comments in a truthful and respectful manner. There’s no need to lie just because someone else is.
The only lie I’ve seen so far is that you don’t get special rights because of your choice to follow the christian religion. As such, you should be called out.
I’ve never known you as a liar… but this one is just outrageous…
Dear Posters,
According to documents from organizations opposing same gender marraige they have asked their followers to purposefully provoke us so we will call the bigots. Their is entirely too much time spent on EJ and Whawell here. Let us focus on eachother, our purpose, and being one human family. EJ is obvioulsy retired, and bored. He is on here constantly and will surely reply to this post. Whawell is angry and probably in denial of some form of lonliness or addiciton. Please pray for them and get back to being good people. The Bible has been picked apart by those who wish to discriminate, for years. From blacks, to women, to Jews it has been picked. The message in the Bible os to love one another. We need to put aside our differences and focuson ourpurpose. By allowing EJ to provoke us we are only feeding into the oppositions hands.