Financial turmoil
With a presidential election looming in the near future, the campaign trail appears to be inundated with mud and offal. Instead of addressing the real issues, they are more concerned with what their opponent has paid in taxes than the problems facing all of us.
I’m sure the accountants who prepare the tax returns for both presidential hopefuls have used every loophole and escape hatch provided by the ever-vigilant IRS. To quote my favorite accountant: “Pay the government everything you owe and not a penny more.”
Most of us are greatly concerned with what will happen to our taxes with the ever-expanding need and greed of our government. Over the years, our citizens have relied more on big government to bind up their wounds and pay their expenses, even as our population has been expanded by illegal immigrants who, in many cases, are receiving benefits they are not entitled to.
I’m sure I’m not the only legal citizen who would like to hear the candidates tell us what they are going to do about our crushing national debt. I’m certain that most legal citizens would like to hear what the candidates have planned for those illegal residents who are now living off the largesse of our government. In the midst of this financial turmoil, I’ve not heard our Congress make any concessions, such as giving up some perks or a reduction in salary.
For too long, there has been a tendency to look at Uncle Sam as the benevolent uncle with deep pockets. Now is the time to sew up the holes in those pockets.
Rita M. Souther
Camden
Marriage vote
News items recently have given us information concerning the status of same-sex marriage. We are told that six states allow gay marriage; but it is very important to acknowledge that these six states have this distinction only through court order or state legislators.
However, when the people themselves have had the opportunity to vote — more than 30 times since 1998 — they have all soundly rejected what has been arbitrarily forced upon them! Should all of these voters, therefore, be considered “bigots” and “homophobes” — labels that homosexuals always put on those who oppose them?
Traditional marriage is the cradle of life (one man, one woman). This definition must not be tampered with or falsely redefined. Marriage is not a word that can be stamped on all relationships.
Sodomy-based, homosexual behavior is what it is — but it is not, and never could be called, marriage. Let Maine voters again affirm this fact in November.
Pat Truman
Hallowell
Men of faith
Who is President Barack Obama really? Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., said, and I quote, “President Obama has a different view of what our culture should look like.” So many of his initiatives violate the moral laws of our great Judeo-Christian faith, and he seems to use European models for what our culture should look like. As a matter of fact, when I think of comparisons, I use the leader of Spain, Zapatero, whose policies were to encourage more abortions, greater access to divorce and the embrace of gay marriage.
It is hard to understand how a primarily Catholic nation could have allowed a socialist/marxist government to rule them. We can ask the same questions of the American Catholic electorate. Why did Catholics so resoundingly vote for Obama? Were Catholics hoodwinked by a unchurched, biased press that polls indicate are indeed in the tank for Obama?
Will Catholics continue to vote for a man, whom I believe is committed to socialist/marxist ideology in direct contradiction to Catholic/Christian moral laws and principles? Is the Catholic population in Maine and elsewhere more committed to political party than loyal to their faith principles?
I tell you, we do not have to worry with the election of Mitt Romney. He will uphold the values of our great Judeo/Christian faith given to us by our forefathers. Our forefathers, men of deep, deep religious faith.
Elaine Graham
Farmington
Augusta representation?
Regardless of political party, we can all agree that our lawmakers should be representing the best interest of their constituents 100 percent of the time — not just when it’s politically convenient.
In my view, Sen. Roger Katz is not among those lawmakers. He voted for a state budget that cuts funding for an intensive case manager on the Augusta Police staff who helps officers deal with potentially mentally ill people in distress. This position has helped keep Augusta streets safe in a community that is the home of Riverview Psychiatric Center.
Katz’s budget cuts now jeopardize that position, and the cuts couldn’t have come at a worse time. Riverview Psychiatric Center is closing three group homes and displacing 16 patients who live in those homes, placing more of a burden on the city, public safety officials and property taxpayers.
Katz’s constituents are up in arms about losing funding for the intensive case manager position, and Augusta city councilors are concerned about public safety and health risks. An election looms, so Katz now plays the role of Augusta’s savior, despite the fact that he is partly responsible for the problem in the first place. Is this the kind of representation Augusta deserves?
Tim Bolton
Augusta
Support for agenda
In his letter (BDN, Aug. 28), Joseph Kelley raises the question of whether gay rights, including same-sex marriage, is one of the things that the brave men who went to war against Nazi Germany were fighting for.
Kelley vehemently expressed the opinion that World War II was not fought for the rights and freedom of gay and lesbian couples. He may not know that the Nazi concentration camps and gas chambers were not built with only Jews in mind. Political dissidents, gypsies and homosexuals were also among those interned and put to death in such nightmarish facilities.
While gay rights may not have been on the mind of those going to war (in fact, sexual orientation was hardly an issue in the 1940s), the freedom of gay and lesbian couples to marry and live without persecution is exactly the sort of issue that WWII was fought for.
Oppressed minorities of all types have the brave men and women who fought against Hitler’s tyranny to thank for the liberty they enjoy today. It is my fervent hope that those liberties continue to expand and that all people will one day live as equals.
My wife and I strongly support the same-sex marriage agenda.
Anders Benson
Kingfield
“However, when the people themselves have had the opportunity to vote — more than 30 times since 1998 — they have all soundly rejected what has been arbitrarily forced upon them! Should all of these voters, therefore, be considered “bigots” and “homophobes” — labels that homosexuals always put on those who oppose them?” – If they voted to deny their fellow American citizens their rights, then yes, they should. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you aren’t a bigot for having a different opinion, you’re a bigot because you want to treat me like a second class citizen.
Who is arbitrarily forcing what on whom is my question? They just do not see the oppression being visited by the majority on the minority I guess.
To say the word ‘always’ is incorrect. I have never, nor will ever, call names. Most of us are educated, tax paying, law abiding citizens who just want the craziness to stop.
I didn’t say always. I also feel that if someone is acting in a bigoted manner, I have every right to tell that person they are acting in a bigoted manner.
You quoted the word Always and I am on your side. I was agreeing with you partially. However, you need to stop being so angry. i am angry but I try to treat people with resepct. When we don’t it makes us all look bad. Some people disagree with gay marriage because they are afraid. They have been brainwashed into believing parts of the BIble and not other parts. They fear the unknown. They are not bigots they are just scared and ill informed. They will continue to chest bump us when we challenge them because they fear us. If we approach them with rational arguments and kindness we may get somewhere.
I honestly wish that were the case, and for a select few that might be true. I have had rational debates on this subject with people in the past. However, there is a large group of people that will not listen to any rational argument you present. Any evidence you present is immediately shot down as having a “liberal bias”. Rational arguments will be met with “nuh-uh”, with no other reasoning. If you are lucky enough to actually get some form of reasoning, it’s severly flawed. Legal arguments will be “countered” with Bible verses. When someone calls marriage equality “sodomy based marriage”, that is a clear sign that they are not willing to have any debate on the subject. In those cases, the best we can do is show other people that, as a society, that level of ignorance is not o.k. People need to learn that Google is not that hard to use.
some are bigots..
Hey Pat,
Want we should have allowed a vote on interracial marriage? Jim Crow? EEOC?
Really? You’re a racist clod.
Quite right: in 1967 (the year that “Loving v. Virginia” invalidated state laws banning interracial marriages), 73% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. A plurality didn’t support it until 1991, almost 25 years later. Cf.
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/05/20/177434/same-sex-interracial-marriage/
pp and his ilk don’t care about facts… don’t care about history… don’t care about civil rights. All they want is to enforce their idea of god onto the nation no matter who it hurts.
Fact is, votes don’t count. The courts will indeed have the final say, and pp’s angst will be as sweet honey.
That, alas, is true the courts will again usurp the role of the legislature and ignore the will of the people. The Courts are becoming an imperial power.
The courts rule on the constitutionality of a law. It doesn’t matter how many people vote for a particualr law, if it is unconstitutional, the court strikes it down.
As it should be.
That is indeed their job but for better than a hundred years they have been gleefully substituting their personal wants with what the Constitution says.
Examples? And your personal disagreement with the ruling does not mean that they are “gleefully substituting their personal wants with what the Constitution says.”
There’s nothing new going on here. They’ve been doing it throughout our history.
Interpretation of the constitution and it’s application to law is part of their job. Always has been. It’s part of our republic (note that we are NOT a democracy). When DOMA was passed by the legislature, it became part of law, and thus, open to scrutiny by the courts. That’s how it works.
People only complain when they disagree with the court.
The only purpose for the U. S. Supreme Court is to decide whether a law has any basis in the US Constitution. NOT interprepert whatt they want the Constitution to say. They are not supposed to create law, as has been done over the last century.
Better put than I…
But: regarding DOMA and marriage bans, that’s exactly what they’re doing. Under the 14th amendment, both are unconstitutional.
Same process as in Loving v. Virginia. No different.
They are not creating law… they are judging existing law, created by state or federal legislators.
But the U.S. Constitution says absolutly nothing about Marriage the Constitution gives the Supreme Court no jurisdiction overt the issue.and using the 14th amendment to create RIGHTS out of PRIVILEDGES is vastly beyond the purview of the US Supreme Court.
That’s lovely, but until Loving v. Virginia is overturned, marriage is a right. Even if marriage was just a privilage, it is still protected by the 14th Amendment.
Problem is … Loving v. Virginia was just one of many stupid decisions made by the Supreme Court. The Federal government had no business getting involved with a STATE licensed Priviledge.
It does if the state is making unconstitutional laws.
If the Constitution says something on a subject and a state passes a law that the Constitution gives that subject to the Federal government, yes. BUT if the Constitution is silent on the subject the Bill of Rights gives that power to the States.
It gives the power to the state to make laws about that particualr subject, but it does NOT give the state the ability to violate the Federal Constitution. If a law is unconstitutional, whether it is a local, state, or federal law, the courts can strike it down.
The Bill of Rights gives the States jurisdiction over anything that the U. S. Constitution is silent on.
Anything the Constitution is silent on can not be Unconstitutional, it is outside the Constitution.
But there are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” granted by the federal government.
THAT is in the constitution.
And gives the SCOTUS means and privilege to find on such cases. Get government out of marriage and then (and only then) will the 14th not apply.
Nowhere did I say anything about a right to marriage… the right is to equal protection.
Do you really not get that?
A persons race is sacred as is matrimony between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is a behavior, nothing more. Maine will no doubt vote to keep marriage the way God intended, between one man and one woman.
But… they want to vote on treatment of citizens under government… on civil rights.
Fact is, we don’t do that at the federal level pp… never have and never will. Nor do we enforce your abomination monster-god’s laws as our civil law.
Your abomination monster-god is meaningless… the fact that it’s all you use makes me very very happy. You insure your own loss…
1. true, but race has not always been considered sacred (except White, of course).
2. Not a behavior but from birth
3. No doubt? Start doubting.
I just caught CP’s meaning. Race is not a behavior? So, people weren’t penalized for acting too black or ethnic back then? They were fully accepted with natural hair or straightened hair? No issue with clothes that their peers in South Central L.A. wore that weren’t the same as what most white people from Kansas wore? The funky black guy on Soul Train with his big ‘fro and groovy bell bottoms was viewed the same way as that squeaky clean white boy on American Bandstand?
That’s right. “Passed for white” was an all too common occurrence showing how ridiculous the racial suppression practices were.
Reminds me of when people say, “You’re gay?!?!? You don’t act gay!” As if that’s a compliment or something….
Sigh….and why is your way of viewing religion and God and marriage able to trump my way? And, don’t forget-not everyone believes in God! Why should the entire state-believers and non-believers alike, be forced to conform to the way YOU view this issue?
We win-you can still not have a same-sex wedding. Your side wins, then no one can have one. The only way to make everyone happy is to vote yes in November.
Heterosexuality is a behavior, nothing more.
Prove that homosexuality is only a behavior please. Just because their has been no gene proves nothing. There has been no gene for many, many areas of science involving humans. I can assure you, if I was attracted to men and did not feel icky when I was with one I would not be gay. Being gay is so hard today and in this country. IT IS NOT JUST A BEHAVIOR. I pray someday you can see the light. God Bless you and yours.
There is no gene for heterosexuality either ….. but he believes he was “created” heterosexual…if that is the case then there must be someting in his DNA that proves it. Otherwise, he chose to be attracted to those of the opposite sex. :)
Bubby, your god is not our civil law.
Why don’t you understand that? I know you’re not that stupid.
His God does not have anything against us. It is his interpretation and need to follow only those parts of the Bible that make him feel superior. Two generations of Biblical scholars have stated that the Bibles referral to homosexuality has nothing to do with loving monogamous relationships.
Good letter Pat. Let’s see where the hate really lies once they get wind of your letter here. Hold on, it’s coming!
Hi snuggle-nugget!!! Still here shilling for that abomination you call god?
How sad.
First you call him an insulting name, then you insult God. Talk about sad.
Snuggle-nugget is an insulting name? Sounds like a term of endearment to me…
Says the guy who screeches about “political correctness” and others not having a sense of humor. Day in and day out, it’s hypocrisy from you. That’s what’s sad.
Have you ever taken it upon yourself to call out any of the insulting or derrogatory names LGBT posters or their supporters are called here? Do you ignore them, believe they are not insulting or derrogatory or just stay out of it if they believe as you do on the topic? cp444 has been called out many many times for spreading misinformation and bald-faced lying. Seems you defend him on occasion but give him a pass when he behaves in the same manner.
PS You might want to contact your state reps and senators in Florida regarding the rights of rapists to sue for custody and visitation to the children they conceive with their victims ….. Florida has no laws prohibiting it.
Hate? Maybe in some quarters but check my response elsewhere.
You don’t think her use of the term “sodomy-based” marriage is hateful? Would you be just as cool with my use of the term “spawn-based” marriage?
And….no answer! I seldom see these “if we’re hateful then what about this from your side” questions answered or even acknowledged.
Oh goodie! More mythology, “ick factor”, ignorance, and calls for harm against law-abiding US citizens. This oughtta be fun.
Elaine,
Are magic underwear part of this “Judeo/Christian faith given to us by our forefathers”?
Cuz… it’s part of Mitten’s faith.
Mitt is a Mormon. Check out what they really believe. Nothing against them but they are not Judeo Christian and neither were our forefathers. Look seriously into the lives of those who penned and signed the Constitution and you will see flawed men.
“Magic Underwear?” Really?
Absolutely! Never heard of it? It’s called a “temple garment”.
My partner went to Utah recently and I really really really wanted a pair myself, but apparently one has to be “special” in order to buy them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
Of course I’ve heard of them. Some Mormons joke about them amongst themselves, but it’s considered a derogatory term.
Not necessarily special, just Mormon. You didn’t convert, did you?
Thanks Anders!
Well said… now prepare to be told you’re going to be punished by invisible sky monsters for wanting government to treat all law-abiding and tax-paying citizens the same.
Mispost.
Elaine Graham – I find it hard to believe that anyone of the Christian faith would support the present day Democratic Party.
Anders Benson – There’s a difference between fighting for freedom for all and fighting for special interests. We fought for freedom for all, not for changing traditional values and instituting immorality into American society. Choices are one thing, and choices are tolerated. However, when those that made their beds want us all to crawl in, that’s not right.
But… your religion is a “special interest” EJ, given special rights in the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’68.
Doesn’t that make you just a little bit hypocrite?
And nobody’s asking you to “crawl” into anything.
Not at all. I’m not pushing for anyone to accept my decision be become a Christian by asking for everyone to be baptized or partake of the Lord’s Supper.
Then I’m not forcing anyone to accept my homosexuality. I’m not asking them to get same sex married or go to a same sex wedding ceremony.
That’s right; you’re only demanding that those of us who don’t oppose abortion in every case, who would allow physician-assisted suicide, and who are not Catholic should be told by you and yours what is right and what is not. What arrogance on your part. Ironically, since you’ve repeatedly said that gender preference is a simple matter of choice, isn’t your fervent Catholicism also a matter of choice? Why can’t someone embrace Catholicism one day and embrace Hinduism the next day in a spirit of tolerance of diverse faiths? After all, it’s a matter of choice!
There you go again displaying your inability to comprehend, at the same time displaying your vivid imagination.
When you can’t respond to my or others’ substantive points, you use terms like “vivid imagination” and “leftist’ to try to refute our points. Anyone who has read your comments knows that you really believe that gender preference is a matter of choice, so that those who allegedly choose “the gay lifestyle”–what an accurate phrase!–could have as easily chosen the straight one. I don’t think it’s much of a leap to say that your choice of conservative Catholicism is not a matter of some transcendent faith but rather of what appeals to you today. Tomorrow you could, to repeat, embrace Hinduism. What’s the difference? Or are gays SO evil in your eyes that they choose in ways different from you and your fellow conservative Catholics?
If you want a proper response, then quit claiming that I’ve said things that I clearly did not say.
Alas, denying precisely what you’ve said, and said repeatedly, re various matters does not quite impress me. Someone who more than once has said that America is coming to an end if Pres. Obama is reeelcted–or do you deny that recent post too?–isn’t someone to take seriously in any discussion. Such nonsemse may work at a Hank Williams, Jr., concert with his persistent assertions that Obama is a Muslim, but it doesn’t work with those who disagree with you, with Hank, and with liars like Paul Ryan–Janesville GM plant closing before Obama took office, for example? You’re not “preaching to the choir” but to other who will happily re-elect Obama despite disappointments that are familiar by now.
I have said that America will suffer irreparable damage if Obama gets another term, especially if he retains the Senate.
Obama does favor the Muslim religion because he was raised with Muslim principles and in Muslim schools as a youngster. And the changes in the DNC platform reflect his favoritism to the Muslim nations.
Obama stood in front of the Janesville GM plant and vowed that if his policies are enacted, the plant wold be open for another hundred years. Granted, it started the shut down before he took office and closed the doors for good shortly after he took office, it was Ryan’s point that Obama made a promise that didn’t work out.
Obama is a failed President. But, if you want more failure, then it’s your right to vote for him again. Personally, I want America to rise back up. You see, America is much more important than a person or a party.
You blame Obama for things he’s not responsible for. You’re ridiculous. You wanted him to fail all along, that was the goal. Have him fail, even if it meant the country failing, so Republicans could get a win.
You apologize for active liars like yourself, Ryan, Romney, etc. and give them all sorts of passes, but then you blame Obama for things he’s not even responsible for! It’s crazy.
I have NEVER said I wanted America or the President to fail. I have OFTEN said that I want his socialistic policies to fail.
Just a note: Obama has failed. And he did it on his own.
So you wanted him to fail…
It doesn’t matter if you say it or not, that’s what it is. Mitch McConnell said it himself very clearly that he wanted the President to fail and it was their party’s ultimate goal to make him fail.
The President is succeeding despite the best efforts of Republicans, at every step, to make him fail. Guys like Ryan refused any compromise for example on the debt ceiling deal even a 10 to 1 compromise in their favor. Romney said he would deny a similar compromise in a CNN debate.
Like I said, you apologize for liars that are on your side and you demonize the President for things he didn’t even do. It’s this unfounded and baseless hatred you have for people different from you — whether you want to admit it or not, that’s what it is. There is no other reason someone would behave the way you do.
Obama made a promise that didn’t work out for reasons totally beyond his control, and you wingnuts act like it’s something that’s his fault?
Oh good grief, EJ… I don’t like the man either, but that’s preposterous.
No one blamed Obama for the plant closing. He was blamed for making a claim that didn’t come true. Funny that the left has blames him for broken promises, but the right can’t. The left blamed him for not closing Guantanamo, not pulling out of Afghanistan, not eliminating the Bush tax cuts, and not granting amnesty to illegals, and now, since it’s an election year, not a peep. The Republicans blame him for raising the deficit, partisanship, and high unemployment, and the left is ballistic with their blame for George Bush.
But, it’s election season, so it’s to be expected. Regardless, he is a complete failure, and President Carter is smiling.
Kinda like Bush Sr.’s “No new taxes” or Bush Jr.’s “Mission Accomplished”?
Really?
Are you THAT hypocritical?!
Barry O is no different than his recent predecessors, and they’re all doing the same things. There is no difference between the two parties once in office. The only real difference is who they pander to in order to get into office.
Two sides of the same coin…. rotten currency needs to be replaced.
“Obama stood in front of the Janesville GM plant and vowed that if his policies are enacted, the plant wold be open for another hundred years.” – And the plant closed BEFORE his policies were enacted. We have no idea if his claim would have come true or not, because, as I said, it closed BEFORE his policies were enacted. It would have been a broken promise if Obama enacted his polices and then the plant closed BUT that not what happened.
Your first sentence is a massive lie.
Sorry EJ but you have used the words “leftists” and “vivid immagination” …. and you have also stated that gays and lesbians choose … you have also stated that you could have chosen it. The difference between innate attraction and choice is that people do not make a decision on who they are attracted or not attracted to …. they just are but it has been explained in science. You cannot force attraction. If you truly believe that you could have chosen to be gay then you would not be attracted to persons of the opposite sex. If you were equally attracted to both sexes, you would be bi-sexual. You do not choose your sexual orientation. The choice that is made is to be celibate or not.
Actually I believe EJ is a Southern Baptist…..
Happens all the time, EJP. I know those who have baled from the Catholic Church and other conservative churches and have found a church home elsewhere, maybe more Christian.
Nor are we asking you to take part in gay marriages.
Are religious groups and churches given special exemptions by the government (ie they don’t have to comply/abide by laws that their beliefs disagree with)? How does that not make religion a special interest group?
It DOES make religion a special interest group… ALL religions.
And I find it hard to believe that anyone of the Christian faith would support the present-day Republican party, with its contempt for most ordinary Americans, its mission to reduce further the nation’s modest safety net, and its obsession with private matters like abortion and physician-assisted suicide that are none of its damn business–this from a party that disavows big govt. when it comes to helping ordinary Americans.
Well, neither party is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. But at least the Republican Party is determined to protect the life of the unborn, build a strong military, secure the borders, and reduce spending.
Reassuring to know from Parsons that the GOP’s commitment to the unborn–as opposed, of course, to the born, for whom it has contempt–leads to that strong support for the military that leads in turn to huge expenditure for military interventions abroad and that leads in turn to injuries and deaths of, yes, Americans. Great logic. And let us forget about the deficits caused by Pres. George W. Bush after inheriting a big surplus from Pres. Clinton.
Your comprehension skills are lacking, but you make up for it with your vivid imagination.
By the way, there never was a surplus. It was a predicted surplus that never materialized.
More like reality than imagination.
Thanks in large part to the next administration.
Wrong.
There actually was a surplus with the federal budget.
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
And also the Rs non-commitment to the unfortunate after they are born.
The far-right way of expressing it’s “pro-life” stance:
“Hurry and grow up little one, we need more meat for the grinder”.
And these are solely Christian attributes?
“Reduce spending”? Methinks you have forgotten about Reagan…
Secure the borders-isn’t that feelygoodspeak for militarizing the borders? Crazy that after years of terrorism in Europe they are working to open their borders while we are doing our best to make our borders Checkpoint Charlie.
God didn’t create borders. We are all God’s children. Borders be damned.
EJ, if the Republican party gave a rats patootie about abortion they’d have got ‘er done long ago. They put it in there as a sop for the conservative vote. That abortion plank has been in the Republican party platform since the 1980, 30 years and they haven’t done anything about it on the federal level.
What is it about $16 trillion in debt you fail to understand? Don’t you see what the socialist utopian mindset is doing to Europe? Why don’t you wake up and assume some responsibility instead of looking to force your neighbors to pay whatever it is you deem you or others need?
EJ, Jesus Christ, was a Progressive, he hated greed. He was killed, because he was trying to rid the temples of money changer ie BANKERS. Jesus, would never be a Republican.
Christ was not a progressive, a democrat, a liberal, a republican, or any other political persuasion. Christ was the Savior of the world, God incarnate, the Way, the Truth and the Life. He was like no other that has ever taken the human form. He loved everyone, and He died for all mankind.
I believe it is disrespectful and self-serving to bring Christ into the argument.
Mark 10:25 “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” That doesn’t sound like it would fit too well in the modern Republican party…
First of all the “eye of the needle” was often referred to as the whole in the wall that a camel would pass through. It was next to impossible for a camel loaded with packs to get through without first removing the cargo off the camels back first. You can replace the word “rich” with anything that will keep you from entering the kingdom of heaven. The sin is not being rich as there were many wealthy men in scripture, the sin is not willing to let go of what is keeping you back. Homosexuality fits that description.
This should be a bit less ambiguous: “Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” Matthew 19:21
Exactly…and what did the rich young ruler do? Was he willing to let go of it for the sake of eternity? No, anymore than you are willing to renounce the sin of homosexuality. Jesus also said you cannot serve two masters, for you love one and hate the other. Are you willing to give up what has mastery over you life for His sake?
Well of course not, I don’t actually believe in any of the Bible, so I don’t view my gayness as a sin. I just think it’s funny that the people who are obsessed with Jesus are the same people who would call him a socialist if he was around today.
I’ve never called Him anything other tha the Savior of the world. You have made your choice. What I find odd is that those obsessed with holding on to their sins and willingly reject Him will also claim the God won’t punish them accordingly. God doesn’t send people to hell, they make that choice all on their own.
Of course I claim that god won’t send me to hell. I can’t be sent somewhere that doesn’t exist by something that doesn’t exist.
Well then you make Jesus out to be a liar. Show me your proof that he’ll does not exist. You can’t anymore than I can prove it does. So here we are placing our faith in opposing worldviews. My faith is based on the Bible and Jesus as God incarnate with lots of evidence backing it. Yours?
You may have your beliefs, but you certainly don’t have evidence to support your claim. But in the end, I’m in a win-win situation. If I’m right, there is no hell and nothing happens. If you’re right, I would gladly go to hell if the alternative was filled with people like you.
Are you saying you wouldn’t want to go to heaven if there were gay people there?
No, I’m saying that if heaven is filled with bible thumpers and hell is full of awesome atheists and gay people, I would gladly choose hell.
My error. I mistakenly thought it was cp444 who wrote that.
And your evidence is what, the words written by men thousands of years ago?
Your faith rests on nothing more than your own beliefs. I see no reason to trust you or your beliefs after reading your empty and often hateful posts. You are but one person with a big mouth and narrow mind.
If you were truly a Christian you would not be here on this site hurting people. You are not Christ’s follower. You do not fit the description. You are not my God. My God loves me just the way He made me. period. I said a prayer for you because I have seen many people like you. I work with them in Alcoholics Anonymous and Al Anon. They feel a need to be right instead of loving one another and doing right. You are them. They are you. I hope you find peace. I dont care if they let me marry my partner or not really. I love her and she loves me and our family is beautiful.
Funny…that sounds like OBAMA.
Well, it’s not. It’s actually Jesus…
I think her compliment (Obama sounds like Christ) has gone right over her head ;-)
LOL, nice try.
According to your translation, honeypot…
Is lying a sin? Will it keep you from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven? Or is your lying justified becasue you invoke God’s word when you do it?
“Homosexuality fits that description” Say WHAT!!!!!!!!!
Once in a while he slips up …. surely what he meant to say was “homosexual behavior” …. homosexuality is the attraction to same-sex individuals and would make identifying as or admitting one is gay or lesbian the sin. Heterosexuality is the attraction to opposite-sex individuals, which is not a sin unless you act on it without a civil marriage license that names those two individuals engaging in the “heterosexual behavior”.
I’m sure he will clear that up :) Of course identifying as or admitting one is heterosexual unless one is married is probably sin too… :-)
Lying is a sin against the 10 Commandments. If I try to be with a man I am lying to myself, to the man, and to my God.
But he will say it only pertains to lying under oath in a court…… IMO that is one of the “new fangled” interpretations like his interpretation of the Commandment regarding ‘adultery’ …. as a term for sex outside of marriage between unmarried individuals (pre-marital sex).
Why can you interpret those parts of the Bible you dont like yet when it comes to gays you read it word for word?
I guess the poverty stricken Democrats have a free pass.
Point is, if Jesus tried to say something like that today, the Republican party would brand him a socialist.
Nor would it fit too well in the modern Democratic party. The Democratic party has as many rich as the Republican party: Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, Susan Sarandon, Bill Gates, and George Clooney (to name a few) are not poor people.
Our problems are not Democrat v Republican. Our problems are that the radical on each side are louder than the majority of Americans who in my opinion simply want fiscal responsibility while providing a leg up, not a career on the dole, to those in need and who believe that all are created equal and should enjoy all the same rights.
We don’t need the multiple layers of government that currently exist – municipal, county, state, federal. I don’t think our forefathers expected government to be the nation’s largest employer.
And honestly, I only view the Democratic party as the lesser of two evils. I would gladly vote for a socially liberal, fiscal moderate/slightly conservative politician. The problem is that the Republican party has been taken over by the social conservatives who completely go against the idea of smaller government. Until the Republican party actually starts to live up to their claim of smaller government, I won’t vote for them. In the beginning of the Republican primary, there was a guy named John Huntsman that I would have strongly considered voting for. I didn’t agree with all of his positions, but he actually seemed to want smaller government. Unfortunately, he was consistent with his positions and wasn’t an extremeist, so he didn’t have a chance to win the nomination.
You, me and the majority of people I talk with want just such a politician. Why is it that we can’t seem to find one? We keep getting exactly the opposite from both parties. It’s a sad commentary on this country when we are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. Maybe in 2016 we’ll have better options…hope springs eternal.
Why is it disrespectful? Conservative Christians (including you do it all the time). See my response to cp444. In addition, Christ was progressive, liberal, apolitical but operating against Pax Romana. If the Jewish leaders (note the distinction) hadn’t goaded Pilate into executing him, the Romans would have anyway. After all, he said he was the Son of God, a title assume by Emperor Augustus.
Didn’t you mention Christians? What are Christians without Christ?
Lost.
Now you’re dragging primetime tv into this argument! Is NOTHING sacred!?!??!
LOL Now that’s funny!!!
Never mind, not worth it.
You’re not capable of objective thinking, so you can’t recognize it, but Jesus was wicked progressive.
In Maine, he’d be wicked good progressive.
Unlike the current crop of Republicans that only love the 1%.
EJ when you said no good Christian would vote Democrat. You brought Christ into the picture.
On your last sentence we can completely agree, EJ.
Christ was ” moon bat” progressive EJ. He got killed for his progressivism. Nobody ever, ever kills people that want to maintain the status quo. And he didn’t love everyone. He threw the moneychangers out of the temple and told the rich they couldn’t get to heaven and he condemned as selfish and heartless those that that didn’t help the injured man by the road that the Good Samaritan helped.
You do it on a daily basis as do cp and others …. it is disrepectful and self-serving then?
Read these words of Jesus carefully. No one could do anything to Him without Him willingly agreeing to it. Jesus came for the sole purpose to die our sins. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, he paid the penalty in our place. You are right greed is a sin and so is homosexuality. You will note Jesus refers to the “prophets” which is direct reference to the Old Testament. Jesus never politicized because He knows that true change has to come from the heart, a heart changed by Him and Him alone. That can only take place when one admits they are a sinner and are in need of Him as their Lord and Savior. Anything else is self righteousness which He despised.
Mat 26:53 “Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve [fn]legions of angels?
Mat 26:54 “How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”
Mat 26:55 At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me.
Mat 26:56 “But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” Then all the disciples left Him and fled.
You ignore other aspects of Christ’s teachings (as well as much of the Epistles), to observe the 2nd great commandment, i.e., loving your neighbor as yourself (on the way to creating heaven on earth).
Good thing those words don’t matter in the least.
Matthew 26:53-56 had nothing to do with Christ’s message. And he most certainly didn’t come to die for our sins. That’s the reason the institutionalized church made up to answer the question of “why the crucifixion” Christ’s purpose as he said was to change people’s attitudes toward’s each other and toward the organized and corrupted religion of his time. All the rest has been made up by an equally organized and corrupted Christian church
He was the lamb of God, meaning his life was to be sacrificed to pay for the sins of man. The prophecies of the messiah called for his life to end.
Nope, all that stuff comes from the early Catholic Church.
That may well be, but Christ was a very complex person. As for fulfilling the prophecies, they made no mention of the mechanism or the agents.
Again, you being on this site and spewing your words of hate against the children on God shows you are not a Christian by Christ’s standards. God Bless you. I pray every time I read your words.
And I find it hard to believe that many Republicans consider themselves to be truly Christian. (See, I didn’t take the bait and be nonsensically absolute).
Never said that.
LOL EJ, saying , ” I find it hard to believe that anyone of the Christian faith would support the present day Democratic Party.” certainly sounds as if you think only Republicans could possibly be Christian. So what were you saying?
That’s what EJP does, says awful and untrue things and then when pressed, he steps back and tries to weasel his way out of it.
Did I specifically mention the Republican Party? Oh, look, I didn’t mention the Republican Party at all. And I didn’t say that only Republicans could possibly be Christians. I said what I said. If you can’t comprehend my statement, then you’ve got a problem.
You can duck and weave but Ali you aren’t. We know what you meant and you do too.
Again, you are making statements that intentionally lead the reader to a conclusion that you later claim is false and then accuse the reader of not being able to comprehend.
I think that’s how he makes himself feel smart.
There is nothing special about being treated equally. Your “special interests” meme is simply an attempt to minimize and trivialize others — it’s wrong and disgusting, like the majority of things you say on here.
Anders Benson; good letter.
Pat Truman: marriage licenses are legal documents issued by the state. Church weddings may be considered “traditional” (they weren’t always) and should be considered “extra”.
Elaine Graham: Socialist/Marxist? Just because the President is not Catholic? News flash: Neither is Romney (and some don’t even consider him Christian).
For that matter many Baptists don’t consider Catholics Christian.
For years, I’ve been wondering how that (un)holy alliance will last.
Fortunately, when someone uses the term “sodomy-based” marriage, then that person’s credibility goes right out the window! The irony that Pat doesn’t want to be called a homophobe or bigot. CRAZY!!!
Thanks Pat! You won’t have to come to my wedding!
You really need to congratulate the guy who came up with that one and got the folks against SSM to use it so freely. Every time someone uses it, it cheapens their argument and, I suspect, loses supporters.
I first heard our good pal Michael “Mike” Heath use it earlier this year…. So, consider the source!
Mike Heath will probably want to legalize a promise of coitus only in the marriage vows. That’s going to sound interesting: “Do you promise to love, have coitus only sex, honor and support this man/woman? ” Then we can all paint up the honeymoon car with signs line “Hot coitus only springs tonight” and “Just coitus only Married”
I’d pay for Heath to take a plethysmograph test… I think it’d be a blast to see his face when the world saw his homo-interests.
And only for procreation, not so?
That’s because in Mike’s mind marraige is has more to do with “proper biblical” sexual relations than love, respect, mutual support…..
“Coitus only-based” marriage (no exceptions) is the only acceptable marriage according to many …. the only type recognized by their religious beliefs and the only type that should receive government given benefits.
So will the Administration of Sanitized Sexual Human Orthodoxy League (ASSHOL) monitor this important issue to assure government benefits don’t accrue to the unorthodox?
Bravo!
Thank you (bows modestly)
Somehow I think the “coitus only” crowd and their supporters will say it’s an invasion of their privacy and that the League is an example of the government suppressing their freedoms ;)
I think that Pat would have a hard time if the law of our land was Muslim based. Separation of church and state!
Actually in a Muslim based society…the GLBT community would be the ones with the problems…They would ask no questions before carrying out the punishment for such acts.
If christians had their way, they’d be just like the muslims.
Luckily, we separate religion from governance.
Oh Ted, sometimes you’re so comical. Even you know there is no comparison.
But then, you do have a flair for the dramatic…
I know no such thing.
There are those “right wing leaders” who are calling for laws making homosexuality a crime.
Others call for biblical punishment upon us.
Do the research… start with Lively and work your way around.
Don’t forget the pastor who said that parents should beat their children if they suspect that the kid might be gay. And the pastor who said that all gays should be rounded up and put into camps. Gee, I can’t quite put my finger on it, but that second one sure does sound familiar…
Right you are!
Amazingly, videos of all these lunatics AND their words stating EXACTLY what you and I have pointed out are all online.
Yest somehow, we’re not supposed to think they exist.
The excuse is “well, they don’t represent ALL christians”. No, but they represent enough. When the shooting happened at the FRC, there was an immediate statement by multiple LGBT groups denouncing the violent action. I wonder where all the “christian” groups were to denounce the statements of gays being rounded up. But it makes sense. If you belong to a minority group, you can be judged by the actions of one person, but the majority is not held to the same standard.
I doubt she will ….. if it is not reported on the news she views or the news she reads it isn’t true . If we post quotes here verbatim or links to video as proof, she will tell us it is being blown out of proportion or the video was edited.
So very very sad.
Then she can live in ignorance all she wants.
Would they punish heterosexuals who engage in the same acts or give them a pass…… and if I’m not mistaken the punishment for identifying as anything other than Muslim in extremist muslim areas is death. I don’t think Christians would be any safer under these laws than LGTB indidviduals or women who are not “submissive”, go out into public without a male escort, dress immodestly (covered head to toe), speak out of turn … etc.
And you would anyway? Thanks for showing your true colors.
And “I” would what? Was I not talking about Muslims?
Comprehension problem? I don’t care one way or another.
It’s your life…live it . But don’t shove it down my throat.
No pun intended.
So, what would constitute “shoving it down the throat”?
Anders you are correct, and Christians and homosexuals among others died in those camps as well.
Elaine needs to focus her energy on her less than Christian behavior. Judge not less the be judged.
Pat, you’re safe! The question in November is, “Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?” See? It doesn’t say anything about preventing straight people from getting married-only that gay couples in love can get a marriage license from the state, too! See? Everybody wins!
Pat Truman, the fact of the matter is marriage is a license issued by the state. One can decide to have a JP, Judge, Town Clerk, Notary of Public, etc…marry them in a secular ceremony. Or one can decide to have a religious ceremony. In either case a couple is just as married in a civil ceremony as they are in a religious one.
A vote to un-ban interracial marriage wouldn’t have passed at one point either — doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Just because you have a lot of people on your side, it doesn’t mean you’re automatically right.
Rita I would also like businesses to stopping living off the largess of our national and state budgets also. If we are going to cut welfare it needs to be social and corporate welfare. Here is an interesting quote to consider “The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It’s more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care).”
So if we cut one-half of the corporate subsidies and tax benefits and one-half of the social welfare programs we could erase the annual deficit and have $17.5 billion left to pay down our debt. That seems a reasonable compromise to me.
every cent from safety net programs goes directly back into the economy, many times over..
these monies spent are a great help to the deficit…
I have one question for all those supporting candidates. Is your candidate affiliated with ALEC? Ask them. Then vote for someone else if they are because they will not represent you.
Also ask if they have signed Grover Norquists pledge. In Washington County we have a candidate that is running for Kevin Rayes seat in the Senate who has signed the pledge and also proposed an ALEC written bill. David Burns is no friend of 99% of Washington County residents.
Rita M. Souther, you are correct in that we need to sew up the holes that are bleeding our countries budget.
Like most families do when faced with a shortfall in income, they make a list of expenditures and cut what is not absolutely neccessary.
The problem here seems that we have two different families in Washington. One seems to want to spend their meager resources at home, patching up their home to make it more efficient in the comming winter. The other seems to want to forget about the house, and spend huge amounts on starting a fight accross town.
If God approved Gay relationships he would have made the waste treatment plant a birth canal.
you do realize that heterosexuals engage in sodomy in larger numbers than homosexuals, right?
I doubt that, besides it’s still not normal even if they do!!!!
Well considering that sodomy is actually anything other than vaginal sex, then yes, there are plenty of heterosexual couples that engage is oral and anal sex. Also considering that the number of heterosexual couples is far greater than the number of homosexual couples, it is very likely that there are more heterosexual couples that engage in sodomy than there are homosexual couples who engage in sodomy.
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-JSM.html
18-19 year old women — 20% have tried anal sex at least once
20-24 year old women — 40% have tried it at least once
All women — 20% have done it in the last year
Funny how you only demonize the gay people engaging in this behavior though. Funny how you only seek to use the law against them and not others.
Wow… not only are you one very sheltered little person, you’re not very adventurous either.
Your choice I suppose… but boy, are you wrong.
And don’t forget: “sodomy” includes oral sex as well as anal. Never had that either, huh?
Sodomy is any sexual activity that can not directly lead to conception ….. see it is not just anal but oral also …. so all heterosexuals who engage in consensual oral sex are not “normal”. Having sexual relations when a female is not ovulating can not lead directly to conception so that is not “normal” either.
If you’re serious, wow! What a reach!
Just expanding on stcroixid’s “logic” trail …. if is not normal for some then it’s not normal for all! ….. ;-)
‘you doubt that’ ?
Elaine Graham says, “……. his initiatives violate the moral laws of our great Judeo-Christian faith, and he seems to use European models for what our culture should look like. ”
LOL Since when did Europe become non Christian?????????
You know when you simply parrot loony conservative media you are going to sound a bit silly yourself.
And again Elaine Graham gets it wrong “……Mitt Romney. He will uphold the values of our great Judeo/Christian faith given to us by our forefathers.”
LOL OK ……. someone tell Elaine that what our forefathers gave us was a Constitution that prohibits the government from giving us any particular faith and that the Mormon faith is Smith-Moroni-Christian not Judeo-Christian.
Rita Souther, Pat Truman, and Elaine Graham – excellent letters!