OLD TOWN, Maine — In a “last stand” effort to preserve the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland held a series of meetings across the state over the weekend urging people to evangelize and explain to friends and neighbors why same-sex marriage should be rejected.
David and Angela Franks, a married couple from Massachusetts, led a meeting at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Old Town on Sunday. Both hold doctorate degrees in theology from Boston schools. Their presentation was titled “Defending Marriage in the Public Square,” an offshoot of Bishop Richard Malone’s March pastoral letter, “Marriage: Yesterday … Today … Always.”
Mainers will go to the polls on Nov. 6 to vote on a referendum that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Maine. In 2009, voters repealed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry six months after the Legislature passed the bill, which was signed into law by then-Gov. John Baldacci.
The Franks outlined what constitutes marriage as “the loving union of one man and one woman, publicly vowed, oriented toward the procreation and education of children and the good of the spouses.”
“Marriage is about children,” Angela Franks said. “Marriage is this relationship in which children are given the optimal environment in which to be raised.”
Because marriage is inherently about children, governments took an interest in licensing and regulating marriages, the couple argued. Because same-sex couples cannot produce offspring, the definition should not be changed to include them, the couple said.
Marriage between a man and a woman makes biological, societal and economic sense, the couple argued, and altering the definition of marriage would only serve to “scramble the social script.”
The differences between male and female seen across the spectrum of plant and animal life are natural indications of what should constitute marriage, the Frankses said.
“It’s not crude, it’s beautiful,” David Franks said, referring to sexual relations between a male and female. “It makes sense.”
David Franks said during the meeting that Mainers are forced to consider a second time in three years whether to recognize same-sex marriage.
“Is that equality?” Franks asked. “No, it’s violence upon us. … We’re being forced to say, ‘Yeah, it constitutes marriage.’”
The Franks said Catholics are challenged in defending the definition of marriage because many of them have homosexual friends or family members who want to carry their sexual “preferences, attractions and desires” into a marriage, and Catholics risk being called “bigots” if they push back to defend their definition of marriage.
“The Church wants to use her gifts to bolster human reason, try to blow away some of the ideological smoke and get at what’s really going on,” David Franks said.
Matt McTighe, campaign manager for Mainers United for Marriage, said Sunday afternoon that the Catholic Church was attempting to stop a change that wouldn’t affect the Church.
The question on November’s ballot will ask voters whether they want the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The law contains a religious exemption, which states that religious institutions can choose not to perform or host a same-sex marriage.
McTighe said the Church’s focus on marriage as a step toward procreation and rearing a successful offspring “undercuts the fundamental core of what marriage really is. … There are thousands of couples that can’t or choose not to have kids, and of course we allow those couples to marry.”
“Should we be allowing the Catholic Church to determine what the state’s definition is?” McTighe asked.
McTighe, himself a Catholic, said that the church is concerned about the sacrament of marriage, while the ballot question is concerned with the issuance of marriage licenses. He argued that allowing same-sex couples to marry and raise children would neither weaken the family unit nor harm society.
“Every couple should have that same freedom to enter in that lifelong commitment with the person they love,” regardless of sexual orientation, McTighe said.
McTighe’s defintion of marriage: “You meet somebody, you fall in love with them, you make the commitment with them, and then you get married.”
What do we care what a married couple from Massachusetts thinks about marriage equality in Maine?
Well…I have to disagree with this. Our side welcomes input from people all around the world, so I don’t think it’s fair to question this. On the other hand, it would have looked better if they had had a Maine couple leading this talk.
That being said, I want to see (and I know it will NEVER happen) those against SSM complain about people from away coming into our state and messing around with out politics. They do that all the time when it benefits teh gays, but NEVER when it benefits them, prime example being the Frank Schubert. Anyone on the anti-SSM side going to ever comment on that?
Plus people shouldn’t forget that it was ‘people from away’ with their money, etc. flowing into California. It’s known to have unduly influenced the vote on their referendum.
States should be off limits to outsiders unless it were a national question (imho)
The SSM side still outspent and still lost
The money from outside (Utah) spent much more to the point of being overwhelmed. Besides, this is about exterior influence in another State. Funding is somewhat irreliphant in a national question as presently Romney is much better funded than Obama, and they’re still neck and neck.
I’m sorry isn’t this a free country where we can donate to whatever cause we want? I don’t see the proponents sending their money back from out of state. So the anti’s cheated, by not disclosing… It’s still money that came in. It’s not like there’s a law that says you can’t bring in $$$ you have to disclose it.
Now if there was a law that said you can’t put in more than “X” amount, and that was breeched, then you have something there and a redo would be order.
This was a strictly hypothetical question of the out of State couple coming in to Maine and their unwelcome peddling and meddling influence. We could get together in a ‘beer summit’ and discuss all the other ramifications of a national question including the SJC’s decision on the question of whether a corporation is a an singular entity or we even agree on PAC’s, but that is straying too far from the original question the conversation was about. This is about a State’s right to decide for itself.
* Oh, I didn’t see an answer to my rebuttal of your original statement of ” SSM outspent and still lost” reply. It tends to discount what you preposed..
* Oh, I didn’t see an answer to my rebuttal of your original statement of ” SSM outspent and still lost” reply. It tends to discount what you purpose..
I didn’t know it was a rebuttal, as it was not clear what point you were trying to make.
But here’s a stab, You cannot make a clear case at this point between the spending for the Presidential election and the 2009 Maine referendum as the final tallies are not in for the Presidential election. You cannot make assumptions based on polls. Not recently but some times, the bigger $$$ spender doesn’t always win, but more times than not the bigger spender will win the election 8 of 10 for the senate and 9 of 10 for the house.
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-wins.html
And on the contrary, to beat an org. or opponent while spending less makes the victory that much more important.
You still didn’t answer my ‘rebuttal’ to your original claim.
Plus, you still fail to comprehend the question of whether an outside influences should influence a local election. Until you come back with an opinion pertaining to the original hypothetical question, I’ll sign off. Straying tangents (redundant?) in a real conversation don’t really work for me.
What is your rebuttal?
What is your rebuttal, exactly point it out, b/c obviously I am missing it.
Do you forget a few hours ago? Sheese!
tofuman Today 09:36 AM in reply to County Escapee
The SSM side still outspent and still lost
Like Reply
County Escapee Today 10:23 AM in reply to tofuman
The money from outside (Utah) spent much more to the point of being overwhelmed. Besides, this is about exterior influence in another State. Funding is somewhat irreliphant in a national question as presently Romney is much better funded than Obama, and they’re still neck and neck.
‘K? Answer your statement and my rebuttal if you can back it up….
OK, I’m still not sure,
“The money from outside (Utah) spent much more to the point of being overwhelmed.”
or is it the “exterior influence in another State” part.
I’ll try my best for both. The outside money coming in from ??? (You say Utah, but no proof) was more than the outside $$$ for the pro SSM side. yes agreed, however, overall spending from inside and outside sources show that the Pro-ssm group outspent the anti’s, by almost 2:1. You have to look at the overall cost and not point out individual subgroups.
As for the other, exterior money shouldn’t matter where the money comes from. I should be able to donate my money to help a cause to Wisconsin Unions or VT marijuana or anywhere that I feel is just in my mind, as long as I abide by the $$$ amount allowance for that state.
If this isn’t the answer, than please spell out the rebuttal plainly for a 12 year old to understand.
OK, one more time if only to clarify my poorly written response since you are having a hard time gleaning from any of it. Pathologically pathetic, really….
1) You said (unsupported) that the anti’s spent less than the supportersin Cal. and still won.
2) I said (no time to support) that they were outspent by money from outside money (Utah) interfering where ‘I believe’ in my mindless mind, they don’t have any right to. Once again this is on THE STATE’S LEVEL!!
3) This is a hypothetical scenario question, on a State level ONLY for gawd’s sake!
You haven’t gotten my point yet?? SOOOO SIMPLE!!
Your lack of comprehension or trolling has long ago, and honestly become old. Call me later, preferably not. This repetitive and pointless dialogue frankly became tiresome long ago! GET IT YET???
PS you still haven’t supported your fist claim that the supporters out spent the anti’s and still lost! YA know’,my original ‘rebuttal to you’ !!
according to following website(s)
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Maine_Same-Sex_Marriage_People%27s_Veto,_Question_1_(2009)
“$9,996,301 was reported to have been contributed to campaigns relating to Question 1, $3,434,064 in support and $6,562,237 in opposition.”
And has been reported in the PPH as well that
http://www.pressherald.com/news/pac-money-builds-in-gay-marriage-battle_2012-05-15.html?searchterm=2009+ballot+donations
“In total, gay marriage supporters spent $5.8 million, while opponents spent $3.8 million.”
As I stated before the anti’s spent less (even with 1.5-1.9 mil by NOM) and won 53%-47%
This doesn’t include the possible free advertising that was given to the pro(s) [unsubstantiated] from the PPH, BDN et. al. that supported SSM.
Again, where my Money goes to is my own business. Because what a state does, may have an effect on the rest of the country (see possible Wisconsin Recall), and the proponents who so proudly proclaim that SSM is allowed in 6 states, while the anti’s proclaim just as proudly that SSM is banned in 32 states. So yes, what happens in other states do affect me, so therefore as a private citizen should be allowed to put my $$$ where I think it would do the most good.
Now could you please tell me where the State of Utah, sent money to the anti’s side? There are allegations that the Mormon church is behind NOM and that NOM is a front for them, however, the Mormon church is NOT THE STATE OF UTAH.
and according to the mormon website http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/united-states/ there are more mormons outside the US about 6.2 :8.5 mil.
Speaking of money from out of state, big question, in 2009 where did Donny Sussman call his residence? There appears to be some confusion, especially since he ponied up over half a mil himself? This is a rhetorical question, whether you choose to answer or not.
I hope that I have clarified my positions and provided substantiated evidence of my claims. However, the opinion piece is just an an opinion.
I started out with an opinion that, in a perfect world, outside money shouldn’t be used to influence an in-state ballot. You came back that in California the pro’s outspent the con’s and still lost. Then, as now, you come back with irrelevant tangents that don’t apply to the original conversation. Still with me? As you are so fond of saying: GOOD BOY!
Spend your money on any campaign anywhere (if in fact you ever do) – that is your right – another tangent/distraction, and as far as Sussman, Maine or Wisconsin are concerned, that too is irrelevant to the initial conversation. Plus, I never once said a word about the LDS or even insinuated that they were the State of Utah. Sheese! It was about a theoretical opinion and your error in funding On California’s Prop 8 after all.
Now, since you did all the research for info that is irrelevant, why didn’t you at least look up the funding on Prop 8 to back up your original claim?
htttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Prop_8#campaign_funding_and_spending
You will see the con’s outspent the pro’s with over 30% of it coming from outside, including many foreign countries! So I’ll stop this useless conversation by going back to square one with my theoretical opinion that in a perfect world, that shouldn’t be. I hope that a basic idea (without all your irrelevant clutter) has finally sunk in
Besides, I live in Boston where SSM was decided and accepted almost a decade ago…,.
I see where the confusion is. My original statement was about the state of Maine and how the pro-ssm’ers outspent the anti’s. I am sorry for any confusion, and based on your posts, I didn’t even know where California came up-however you did mention Utah in your posts.
And for a parting shot at you, since your posts to me have been snidely at best, if you are against money coming from out of state, why are you, a BOSTONIAN, sticking your nose in another’s states rights? Your “$$$ free opinion” is like a PSA for SSM. Oh btw, your state’s decision was not decided by the vote of the people. So thank you for your input and the less than clear hypothetical scenarios that you were trying to describe. Sheesh
Since you left me with a couple questions, I have to reply one more time:
“Plus people shouldn’t forget that it was ‘people from away’ with their money, etc. flowing into California. It’s known to have unduly influenced the vote on their referendum.”
Does that sound like a PSA? No, an opinion.
That was my original reply to regular joe.Your original ‘statement’ was, in fact, a reply to me in which you said to me that the …SSM lobby still outspent and still lost…. See where the confusion started NOW? Not with me….
You took my frustration at mentioning California 2 more times in this silly argument and getting nowhere as being snide even after all my explanations.
I take interest in Maine’s happenings because I’m still a land owner in the County (see my ‘handle’?).
I’m more than aware as to how Ma. SSM came around. I’m also aware that it wasn’t challenged because there was only minimal opposition; almost 10 years later, NO BODY CARES! The sky didn’t fall! I didn’t get a divorce over it…
OVER and OUT
Lousy edit and irrelaphant link. NEXT?
They broke the law …. plain and simple … they refused to disclose even though state law says they must. They still have not disclosed even after they appealed and lost …. so they are still breaking the law. What laws are you free to break and get away with?
I don’t know how often do people pay Maine Use Tax, or claim the Use tax on personal item purchases outside the state? How many people speed and get out of it when they appeal b/c the constable decided not to show for court.
YES, they broke the LAW, I agree whole heartedly and they should be penalized until they are in compliance with the law. I noticed that NOM has not donated since, as this is the right thing to do.
But until they got caught (after the fact), the money was already donated, spent and the vote completed. And when all is said and done, the SSM proponents STILL LOST even though they OUTSPENT the anti’s by almost 2:1.
Are you certain they will not be entering into this referendum through donations to other PACs or means? IMO the law was repealed becasue the SSM opponants played on fears and emotions not on facts. They admitted this after the fact …. hope fully the voters will not “fall” for that deceptive scheme a second time. If they do then IMO that old saying “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me” will be applicable.
Can someone tell me what are the facts? It is said that civil rights were made b/c people were born that way. Women were born that way, they had no choice in the matter.
The argument is still out whether you are born a homosexual or not. The gene/chromosome (whatever) has not been identified (at this point). You can make all the conjectures you want for or against being born homosexual, but until facts are out, then it is still theory and hypothetical in which civil rights not being violated can be argued, b/c being gay is a choice, therefore no civil rights are broken.
Just b/c I don’t believe in the speed limit doesn’t mean I can make my own group of speedsters and say that it’s against my civil rights to have to abide by the law.
So, following your logic, a business owner should be able to fire a Christian, a landlord could kick a Christian out of their housing, and the government could prevent Christians from getting legally married? Christianity is a “choice” of religion, “therefore no civil rights are broken.”
Actually a state can legally prevent a wedding if it is deemed that they are not fit for marriage. (kind of hard)
Good job avoiding the question. Should I be able to discriminate against Christians because of their choice of religion? Following your logic, yes.
Yes, go ahead, with some of the same quotes, if you don’t want my business b/c of who I am then I won’t go, but don’t be offended if I tell all my friends not to frequent your establishment
Thanks for outlining the difference between an “inalienable right” and an attempt to make a counterfeit one.
So you agree that I should be able to discriminate against a Christian because of their “chosen lifestyle”?
Tofuman, Your statement about people being give civil rights was based on an immutable characteristic (male, female, black, white). It’s a common error, made by many.
The courts have determined that an immunatable characteristic is NOT a requirement to be covered under the umbrella of civil rights. The easiest example of that is religion. All religion is chosen yet freedom to practice it is one of our most highly respected civil right.
The spending issue is well documented. Pro-homosexual marriage outspends the opponents by more than double. In-state or out of state–where do you think the Route 1 band of voters come from? This will be recent transplants and students against the traditional Maine voters, as it was last time. Check the demographics, it’s very clear.
I wouldn’t say doubled and it’s not in every state that the pro-SSM side has more money than the anti. And it’s only been recent that some pro-SSM campaigns have raised more. But since you say it’s well documented, can you tell me where? Because I have not seen such documentation.
However, that wasn’t my question. I’m talking about how we get trashed for bringing in out of state people to help the campaign while the other side does it and no one says a word. So, Frank Schubert and the Drs Franks-none of them are from Maine. Is that okay that they should be here and help (or even direct) that anti-SSM campaign?
I believe politics have strange bed fellows… I am very happy the Church is taking a stand. The Chuch has been placed in a closet and it is time they come out and stand for something…
They don’t stand “for” something, they stand AGAINST the United States Constitution’s guarantee of “Equal Protection Under the Law.”
Gays and Lesbians already have equal protection under the law. This referendum has nothing to do with equal, it’s all about special.
Yes, the special rights of Christians to impose their belief system on American citizens. The only special rights group in this matter is the Christian zealots who want to have special rights to control other people’s lives.
Let`s not forget that by aguing that they are only protecting and practicing THEIR freedom of religion that they are denying the same freedom of religion of others. The state offers clergy the courtesy of witnessing the civil marraige contract, imagine their outrage if the state recinded this courtesy and only recognized marriages witnessed by secular officiants.
Still promoting that fiction? No way Jose.
People of different races also had equal protection under the law except when they wished to enjoy the privilege of marrying each other. The only way they were allowed the privilege of civil marriage is if they married within their own race. Of course they weren’t restricted from marrying ….. just as long as they ‘chose’ to love someone who shared their race.
Then what is DOMA? Isn’t that a law by Congress, in which the Constitution says Congress makes the laws, therefore DOMA is Constitutional?
Except for that pesky 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Also, if you want to get even stricter, the Constitution does not give direct power to legislate marriage to the Federal government, so that power falls on the state. DOMA could also be considered unconstituonal based on the fact that the Federal government does not have the power to make laws regarding marriage.
I’m all for that, let’s state’s rights trump. So will the SSM get off the Federal Courts case for receiving death benefits et. al. You have your state’s right to Marry in 14 states. The federal govt. doesn’t have to recognize your marriage as legal therefore no federal benefits.
Isn’t this why we have DOMA in first place? b/c the SSM people just weren’t happy enough for marriage attempts and forced the govt. to make a stand?
Except if the federal government provides benefits to opposite sex couples, then they must provide those benefits to same sex couples. As for DOMA, you need to do a bit of research. In the 90’s, Hawaii was considering legalizing same sex marriage. Religious conservatives worked themselves into a tizzy because if that happened, then same sex marriage would effectivly be legal in the entire country, due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. To stop that, they passed DOMA, which made it so the federal government did not have to respect a state’s definition of marriage and another state would not have to recognize out of state marriage licences of same sex couples.
So again, a force had influenced itself on the Federal Govt, and therefore the govt. pushed back. This is what happens when you insert govt. into everything. You want something, then be prepared for the ramifications. If SSM people want this to pass federally then be prepared for other benign events which will rear its head up.
No I’m not a doomsayer, but I do understand that there are ramifications for every decision that is made.
“We have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it!”
Except, the only force on the Federal Government was from religious conservatives.
call it how you want, it is still a force that was exerted, and therefore the Fed Govt made a decision.
A like force was placed on the govt and now public prayer in school is banned.
Just like a small minority that has tried on many occasions to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned in all state(s) runned schools. Oh my word, the world is going to come crashing down b/c we said the “G” word.
Please spare me if I don’t break out the violins
Ah yes, silly me, you can’t be bothered with the concerns of a sizeable group of American citizens being forced into second class status.
yeah you’re right, I can’t be b/c if we were that concerned then the Native Americans would have all the land back and we would all be in reservations living off the federal teat.
I think we are all well aware what the church has been doing in that closet. Unfortunately they are not being prosecuted nearly fast enough for it. As for the question of Same Sex Marriage, Politics and Religion have no business in it. The Equality of the entire human race is in question and that is all that anyone needs to know. All people deserve the right to marry, period!!!!!
And the “stand” the Church took against the sexual abuse of children at the hands of ordained Priests was?
Well, they took the “stand” at trial in an attempt to defend the abusers…
Double puns intended?
What religion has been placed in a closet…?
Well if they want to get in the middle of passing laws, I hope they “stand” for paying taxes. Otherwise they need to stop advocating what laws should and shouldn’t pass.
same reasons your side keeps saying how other countries allow ssm,
What do we care what a married couple from __________(insert country) thinks about marriage equality in Maine?
Does the couple from Massachusetts remember that their state has legalized same-sex marriage? The couple and their Church seem to be just fine!
As a straight resident of Boston I can say that the sky hasn’t fallen, and that a decade later, NO ONE HERE CARES anymore! Not even our huge Irish Catholic population (maybe it was Cardinal Law’s ‘transgression’?).
Only b/c it didn’t go to a vote of the people. In fact SSM is only allowed in states where it hasn’t been voted by the people. It’s actually a landslide 32-0 when put to a vote.
Calling the struggle to gain equal rights ‘violence’ is beyond the pale. If these Catholics want to talk about violence, they need look no further than the history of their own church.
I’m not sure that you can call the Catholic Churches violent sexual abuse of children ‘history’. It hasn’t been long enough since it happened – I think it’s more like the ‘here and now’.
Well, you can call the crusades history. And if they’re going to talk about the recent notion of SSM, then talking about the sexual abuse of children within their church, which has been happening longer, is well within the scope of time.
yes. let’s not forget the crusades, or the inquisitions, witch hunts and witch burnings, or the murder of Huguenots and new world heathens under the auspices of “the church”
and who can forget the blind eye they developed in Europe in the 30’s and40’5? good times, good times….
listening to the Catholic church on issues of morality is like taking iceberg avoidance lessons from Capt. Edward Smith.
Really? The Church is to be discounted as a moral teacher because you hold it to the highest of standards; and the actions of some individuals have not met those or it’s own standards. This might give you pause.
The “Church” lost its credibility when it chose to hide and protect the sexual child abuse it knew was occuring. It was suppposed to be a moral compass and failed.
no. the church is to be discounted on matters of morality because of this:
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/08/police_woodburn_priest_chased.html
How do you know that? The fact the abuse to children has only recently come to light, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been happening for decades or longer.
I certainly remember the rumors when I was a kid.
“Yesterday is just the most recent page of the book of history”. —-I forget who—-
It is just recently that all child abuse is coming to our collective attention, and if you read that 10 years ago a priest had been doing it for 30 years or more, I think it should at least touch the fringes of your definition of history.
Sexual abuse of children is and always has been an unspeakable violent and destructive act. The priests who have done this were doing a grave evil. To say that the Church did these things is comparable to saying that the NCAA is an institution that promotes child abuse.
Did the “Church” protect, hide and not report those within it’s midst those they knew were sexually abusing children? Yes or No?
Schmidlap,
you can quit using the past tense there spin doctor. your priests ARE STILL RAPING BOYS AND GIRLS.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/08/woodburn_priest_held_without_b.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/08/woodburn_priest_held_without_b.html
and this is in THIS COUNTRY, with it’s concomitant helicopter parents and hyper vigilance for looking out for kids.
What do you think your priests are doing to kids in countries where the culture is different, not as protective and more poverty exists?
if your church had to compensate for all the pederasty that has been committed by it’s employees the whole frigging enterprise would be broke.
“Calling the struggle to gain equal rights ‘violence’ is beyond the pale. ”
Mean while;
Catholic bishop convicted of shielding priest – CNN.comwww.cnn.com/2012/09/06/us/
…bishop-convicted/index.htmlShare2 days ago
– A judge in Kansas City, Missouri, has sentenced a Catholic bishop to two years on probation for failure to report suspected child abuse, officials …
Calling homosexuality equal rights is defending a local so called reverend and scandal at penn state.
Once again, you present the false equality of pedophilia and homosexuality.
No one is calling “homosexuality” equal rights. A law-abiding US citizen has the right to petition for equal access and treatment under civil law. You and others here are continually equating marriage with sexual relations. Marriage is not about sexual relations …..adult humans can participate in sexual relations without a marriage license. Unless these consenting adults are practicing in public, or with a closely related blood relative or causing punishable physical harm then it is not agaisnt the law. Pedophilia and child molestation does not involve consenting adults … but the unlawful sexual contact of a child by an adult. Why do you have such difficulty in understanding that? Female children are raped and molested at a much higher rate than are male children …. yet you and others ignore that fact in order to demonized gay men. If 75% of victims of pedophilia and child molestation are female, where is your outrage? Why are you not demonizing heterosexual men with the same fervor?
Incidentally ….. pedophiles are not heterosexual or homosexual …. orientation is applied to adult atrraction and pedophiles are not attrracted to other adults.
How many young girls did Mr sandusky or the make believe reverend molest.
How many little girls did Dr. Earl Bradley molest and rape? How many did he plead guilty to? Look him up timjy. Do little girls not matter to you or are you going to continue to ignore the fact that little girls are more often victims? Why do you choose to focus on male victims only? The plain and simple fact is that males are by far the the most common perpetrators of sex crimes against children ….. should society demonize all males and forbid them from having any contact with children regardless ofthe child’s gender? Should you be demonized because your fall into the category of male?
So lets accept another group just because they were found to be a voting block for the dems in the 70’s.Do children not matter to you. two wrongs do not make a right.
Oh children matter to me immensely ….. male and female equally but clearly not to you. You evidently care more about male children than female children …. hence your silence and continued non-response of female victims of child rape and molestation.
Let me ask you this ….. was the sexual explioitation and abuse of children forefront in your mind prior to the discovery that the “church” covered up and protected perpetrators of sex crimes? Or was it the fact the the majority of victims speaking out in this case were males?
Orientation is not “law or age conscious”. Orientation as you describe it is a political term with no scientific basis other than hypothesis. And, if there is a scientific basis for strong sexual urges, pedophilia would have to be one. Inability to control behavior with regard to powerful urges can be, and usually is, regarded as a disorder, especially when the behavior is dysfunctional. Many people, and natural law itself, consider homosexuality to fall into this category. In fact, it was recognized as such until politics got the better of science in 1973.
“Inability to control behavior with regard to powerful urges can be, and usually is, regarded as a disorder, especially when the behavior is dysfunctional.” According to Paul, marriage is for those who cannot control their sexual urges/desires. By your statement you are saying that heterosexuals cannot control their sexual urges …. and that they are inherently dysfunctional. Of course you will deny that is what you are saying but it indeed fits what you have stated.
Orientation is defined as the primary attration of adults and adults and it was defined in the late 1800s. The percentage of those with a homosexual orientation has remained constant over hundreds of thousands of years as have the percentage of those with a heterosexual orientation.
The Catholic Church has been working to prevent people from thinking freely about what is right for well over a thousand years.
We are only as free as our ability to escape the blindfolds of tradition.
The test on this one is easy:
How many would be harmed by this change? Zero.
How many would be helped? Thousands of fellow Mainers.
It’s a no-brainer.
I wish all policy questions were this easy.
This is reality Jason, you are harming society. You can’t see it now because you are stuck in your own selfish world. You have not helped anyone, you may think you have made people “feel” good about themselves, but ultimately when you going against nature, nature will win. And as much as you don’t like to hear it, homosexuality is violence against nature.
Yes Jason this is a no brainer, you can’t fool mother nature.
Reading all the responses to this article convinces me more and more how immature and closed minded proponents of SSM are.
So “Jason” is stuck in his own selfish world, but you are not. Can you explain that?
Is it because you feel that you have the myth of religion on your side?
More than 1500 animal species have been observed to engage in homosexual behavior, and 500 of them have been well documented. Your argument is sheer bunk. Homosexuality is indeed part of the natural world, and it’s been going on for millions of years, so far without ill consequences for any living thing.
then why can’t the guy in dover who wanted to marry his dog be able to, huh?
Can a dog sign a legal contract?
because an animal can’t consent. Good lord.
Does the dog have the capability of self awareness-your argument is stupid and not, in the least, related to consenting adults.
Why is it the Catholic church allows Christ to have so many “brides”? Is that not considered polygamy? Why is it the Catholic church mandates priests be “married” to the church but until recently (in specific cases) but not women? Is the church coneidered a living breathing consenting adult of the opposite sex …. and can it legally sign a contract and will these “marriages” produce children?
Or is this a different definition of “marriage”?
How can the Catholic Church take a stand on political issues and not lose its’ tax exempt status?
When you have to resort to idiotic extremes to further your argument, you’ve already lost.
I understand how you feel but I disagree.
Other law changes that were said to be against nature in the last 100 years:
Desegregation of the races.
Women’s right to vote.
Those seem to have turned out okay.
Your ‘violence against nature’ argument is a dog that just won’t hunt.
People like letstrythisagain, more than likely, believe the right of women to vote distroyed America. People with that mindset desire women to be with their legs in the air, spread, and ready to pop out babies like a conveyor belt. A woman cannot exactly assert herself as a person when there are wailing babies to be fed and a male demanding lunch etc and sex.
Violence again nature?
Let’s try this again.
Homosexuality is observed in nature in almost all animals and historically predates the vaunted bible by millennia. There is a huge difference between ‘deviance’ and ‘standard deviation’.
Disallowing equal rights in 21st century America is a very disturbing concept.
Hopefully our society has evolved beyond wild kingdom.Evidently some have not.
Agreed. Our cerebral acceptance of the verity of standard deviation can help us to transcend the visceral in this issue.
So you accept evolution. We’ll keep that in mind in further discussions.
Actually, the Catholic concept of sex, thanks to Augustinian cant, has not evolved past the animal practice of sex, that is only for procreation.
Touché! Excellent point!
The only one who wants to keep sex at the level of animals is the Catholic Church itself.
I do not believe there is homosexuality demonstrated in nature as you state. In nature animals breed to procreate, not just for kicks.
Then you have never heard about he Bonobos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior
Perhaps you should start watching documentaries involving the animal kingdom …. they are very informational.
Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, talking. It is fact. Have you never seen a male
dog mount another male dog? Time to put the opinion aside and do some research. I promise-it won’t hurt.
Where are the specifics in your statement “You are harming society” Please enlighten me about how being gay harms society. Please tell me why being gay equals violence against nature…what type of violence? Specifics please.
Nature and religious doctrine do not determine law.
Think the only one stuck in their own selfish world is you. You selfishly want to control other people’s lives and force your religious belief system on American citizens.
Do you “feel good” about discriminating against your fellow American citizen?
You’re bloody insane!
“violence against nature”?
Good grief…
Just an FYI, marriage, computers, cellphones, and houses are also “against nature”, yet I don’t see you complain about those.
SSM advocates are selfish? Violent? Classic pot and kettle.
I’m sure many believed and still believe that iner-racial marriage and inter-faith marriage advocates were also selfish and “violent” attacks on their definition of marriage. As a matter of fact, I’m sure that the Crytal Springs church were thinking the same thing when the congregation forbid a heterosexaul black couple from marrying in their church. Luckily the pastor didn’t share their fear and married the couple at another location.
Let me see, Mother Nature. In nature wolves sniff the anal region of their fellow pack members to say, “Hi!” . In nature male lions kill every cub that is not his, when entering in a new pride. Oh, and in Mother Nature, animals hump one another to show who is boss. Take your archaic argument and, please, go in the closet and talk to yourself. People such as yourself are a detriment to society. No one is interested in your Patriarchal bull crap.
Do you wear clothes? Well you weren’t born naked, so you are going against nature. Do you eat your food cooked? Well, it doesn’t come that way naturally. DO you live in a house? Well those don’t exist in nature either.
Don’t get me wrong, it was one of the better pro-bigotry posts I have read, but unless you live a “natural” life, you can’t use that argument. OH, BTW there are no computers in nature.
I think you, and the people that think as you do, are the close minded ones. How would SSM harm you? Why do you care what people down the street are doing, if it doesn’t affect you in any way?
Homosexuality occurs in nature. A legally sanctioned union has nothing to do with religious values; it is a contract. My heterosexual marriage is not diminished by gay marriage any more than my property ownership is diminished by gay property ownership.
Please share the absolute specifics (absolute facts, not theories, not slippery slope agruments but actual real facts) of the ways allowing same-sex couples civil marriage licenses is harming society…
It’s just violence, remember? Violence = harm, so there you go!
http://carm.org/homosexual-marriage-affect-me
As your moniker states – lets try this again ….. CARM is the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry ……
“CARM is a 501(c)3, non-profit, Christian ministry dedicated to the glory
of the Lord Jesus Christ and the promotion and defense of the Christian Gospel, Doctrine and Theology ….”
I asked for ABSOLUTE FACTS.
Lyndme, Lets is obviously a person who learns by rote, which explains his/her affinity for
formal religion. Repeat after me, “I hate gays. I hate SSM. Jesus told me to. Pastor fullofit told me so. Father bs told me to.” If they’re told it enough times, they begin to believe it. Too bad my bridge in Brooklyn has been sold. They’re such easily manipulated targets.
You were asked to provide facts and instead posted a link to a christian site? You really must pick up a dictionary and learn the difference between “fact” and “opinion.”
Oh I suppose you can come up with facts regarding SSM and not opinions?
Gladly. Try this one on for size: Anti SSM people like you are il-informed, bigoted, and condemnatory. Jesus must be might proud to see the job you do when you step into his sandals.
No,lets, this is only your personal reality…clouded by the lies you live and like to
perpetuate. The only “no-brainer” part of your post is the fact that you function without a brain. Amazing. And I thought the dinosaurs became extinct eons ago.
Do I understand you to say that, once SSM is legal, you will be compelled to marry someone of the same sex?
like it or not, believe it or not, we are born gay or straight, the way God made us. God loves gays just as he loves straight people. Learn to accept your fellow man or woman as God’s creatures
Jason you and all the responders to my post have prove my point. Reading all the responses to this article convinces me more and more how immature and closed minded proponents of SSM are.
Just so we’re clear, according to you:
Pointing out the flaws in your argument – immature
Flagging a post because you don’t have a better response to their argument – mature
Seems legit…
Let me clear with you. None of you have shown to me “flaws” to my argument. You’re arguments are based on pure emotion. You may think people agree with SSM , but most people are disgusted by the issue. Some have just given up and will pretend to agree just because they are tired of being harassed. They may tolerate you, but they don’t agree with you. I run in your circle of friends and they don’t know how I think regarding the issue. I hear how snotty you are about people who disagree with you. I also know how dysfunctional most homosexuals relationships are because I work with you. Homosexuals are fooling themselves and the people they have supporting SSM.
No, actually, you don’t know me. All you could possibly know about me is what you have read in my comments. But, let me educate you. I have a great, stable, loving relationship with my boyfriend. Most of our friends are straight, and they all support same sex marriage. They even supported it BEFORE they found out either of us were gay. I don’t have “friends” like you, because if a “friend” ever told me that I should be treated as a second class citizen, they would not be my “friend” for much longer.
Let me know how your “relationship” is going in a couple of years. I don’t treat you as a second class citizen, but I do disagree with your choices my friend.
” I don’t treat you as a second class citizen” – If you vote to take away my rights, then yes, you do treat me as a second class citizen.
Just for your information, I know about 7 same-sex couples who’ve been together for over 20 years, so don’t even “go there.” If you disagree with same sex couples’ choices, who really cares, letstry? Who really gives a tinker’s dam what a closed mind thinks?
Intelligent beings consider the source.
They choose to ignore same-sex couples who stand the test of time ….. it is an inconvenice to their “truth”…… sad but it doesn’t fit their stereotypes or beliefs that we are not capable of loveing relationships.
And “disgust” is not an emotion …. ?
Try more than 1700 years.
I think most of these comments are missing the point. It is not the business of the church who I wish to marry. As an American I demand equal rights!
If this does pass .The church will be the next victim.
I understand that, like most conservatives, you are afraid. Change can be a frightening thing. But change and improvement is what America is all about.
Without frightening change, monarchs would still rule, slavery would still be legal, women would not have equal rights with men (another change the Church has been afraid of). All of these changes were, at the time, “against nature”.
Kings were born to the throne and anointed by God. Slavery was the natural condition of Blacks. Women were biblically inferior.
Have courage. Embrace change. Don’t fear it.
I fear the wrath of nature.
The truth doesn’t change.
Slavery is not allowed in the USA any longer …. no matter how the master treats them (even according to the Biblical guidelines) = Truth
Woman are free to own property and be separate entities even if they are married = Truth
Women are allowed to speak in church, whether as a member of clergy or as a layperson = Truth
People who are non-Caucasian are as human as Caucasians and are treated as such = Truth
People of faitsh other than Christian are allowed to practice their faith in peace = Truth
Rape is rape whether the perpetrator is married to the victim or not and punishable by a prison term, not by a monetary payment to the victims family or being declared married = Truth
Homosexual Orientation is not a mental defect or mental illness nor are consenting, loving and committed same-sex couples cited anywhere in the Bible = Truth
If the church becomes a victim it is only because it was a self-inflicted wound. I recall when they used to haul the pope around in a sedan chair. Talk about an institution that is woefully behind the times. Look around the pews. How many young families with 10 kids do you see? Check the admissions lists at the seminaries or prospective nuns. What is killing off the church is education and awareness of the world. Another factor of nature? Adapt or disappear.
The Church built on St. Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ will not be taken down by any and all forces of evil.
Peter was a mortal male and unless a church was physically erected on his living body (which would logically have killed him), the “Church” was not built on him. That is the theological belief of one Christian denomination. Peter did not author the US constitution nor is he the basis of US Civil Law.
I guess you consider “reality” a force of evil? All I am saying is open your eyes and look at what is happening in the church. There is a shortage of both priests and nuns signing up for service, accounting for the consolidation of some churches. This was reported recently in the news, with regard to that auction held to sell off some extra items from three (?) churches being closed. Look in the pews. Mostly older people. Not a lot of young families. Who is left after the old folks die off?
Call it evil. Call it what you want. I call it like I see it. Your church (and other churches of other faiths, as well – none are immune) may still remain standing. How many people will be sitting in the pews is anyone’s guess.
I am not saying this is good or bad. It is just my observation. If it were not for the Hispanics coming to the USA, I would wager the RCC annual growth numbers would be negative. Right now, I doubt the growth numbers in the church are keeping pace with population growth. I’m sure someone could look up those statistics and post them.
The people are getting smarter. The population realizes that there are people born with both sexes, that there are people born with 2 sets of DNA, and that telling a person that they need a sex change operation to marry the person that they love is cruel. Why is marriage for children the only acceptable Catholic marriage when older people get married all the time, and lots of people do not want to have children but still want to get married. Does the Catholic Church want to tell me how fast I can drive too? How many years ago would a person have a heretic for saying that the earth was a planet and one day we would go to Mars? All about the children, jeez, you can still marry your first cousin in Maine, and the Catholic Church hasn’t rallied against that yet… We live in a capitalist society, and if the church can’t keep up even with the commercials, propaganda and spokespeople that they pay for, then perhaps they should just worry about what Jesus would have worried about and get back to their roots. I would respect them more if they did. I used to be Catholic until I deemed it silly.
Would you really respect the Church under any circumstances?
How?
Many religious denominations and doctrines throughout history and today have forbidden and refused to allow inter-racial marriage and inter-faith marriage …… civil marriage does not forbid them. Have churches been forced to conduct them by penalty of civil law ….. NO
The church will be the next victim? GOOD! Look how many people IT has victimized in one form or another for centuries now. Toodle ooo.
And to add a “P.S.” they can always seek out religious counseling from the charlatans such as Michelle Bachman’s husband who claim to “pray away the gay.” If they had an ounce of honesty, they’d call it “preying.”
Do some study. The godless or atheistic forces have been responsible for more deaths and misery in the past 2,000 years by a margin of tens of millions. In fact, in the past 100 years the secular/atheistic folks have been responsible for tens of millions more deaths that can be blamed on Christianity in it’s over 2 thousand years of existence.
And, you seem to discount the first development of universities, the network of hospitals, the feeding of the hungry, clothing of the poor–in your indictment of the Church as a great evil in the world.
Is your statement an excuse for “the Church” being the cause of the deaths and misery of others?
No, Schmiddy, YOU do the studying. Those forces you mention are called fellow human beings and the fact that they may not attend church does not make them “godless or atheistic,” which I’m sure you’ve been lead to believe. I used to be a practicing Catholic from birth until several years ago, when I began to notice how the religious right was starting to corrupt it.
The church I used to know was all-loving and accepting. Not now.
Yes, I discount everything you mentioned. None of that will ever mitigate the damage done by pedophile priests or the condemnation it spews out, now, toward same sex couples.
So you see what happens when one “assumes” things? I am not an atheist. I simply got out while my faith was intact. I still believe. I just choose to practice my faith anywhere but in a church. Reading comments such as yours reaffirms I made the right decision. Thank you.
Real FACTS, schmidlap — cite sources and numbers. Until then, your post is meaningless and hyperbole!
I’m a Catholic and am well aware of the 10’s of millons the Church had killed, more people then all the wars put together in the history of mankind… Yet I am proud of being a Catholic.. They don’t bow down to political correctness for anyone. I like that.
Nor what’s right! Hallelujah!
Don’t believe all the BS lies about how many people the Catholic Church has killed. Those were made up by Protestants in the 1500’s and have been embellished by non-
Catholic Christians and atheists over the past 500 years. The real truth is that more Catholics have been killed for their faith than any other religion in the history of mankind. Tens of millions were martyred in the 20th century alone.
What are you smoking, anyhow?
Even ONE person killed in the name of religion and the “Prince of Peace” is one two many. You seem to have a serious case of denial going on.
The land of make believe…
Speaking of MBE …
Why do you hate Protestants so? Do you hate all other non-Catholic as much? America is not a Catholic State, never has been never will be. America is not a Religious State of any kind, never has been and never will be. If this displeases you, you will either have to accept it or find a place where it is.
Exactly. It is illegal and politically incorrect to support, engage and cover up the sexual abuse of children. They didn’t bow to it…instead tried to cover it up for many years. How can anyone be proud to be Catholic? The entire religion is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught.
Tell us, please, about what the Catholic church should be teaching.
Interesting that you should bring up political correctness since the Catholic Church has been the state church of many nations for 1700 years.
The Catholic church hasn’t killed 10s of millions of people. But, this feat has been accomplished in the last century by atheistic/ godless attempts at controlling people.
Why any thinking person would associate themselves with this denomination of Christianity is far beyond me. The Catholic’s have a thousand year history of money grubbing, paternalism, oppression and child molesting. I don’t get it.
Penn state!
Drinking this early in the morning?
See my other post against your comparison. Plus I’ll bet that Sandusky was Catholic. Doesn’t matter really, but illustrates the futility of your comparisons.
Sandsusky was in fact Catholic, and married to a woman since 1966.
How quickly we dismiss the grace and beauty of our mother the Church. We were told there would be times like these.
Catholics rule
Or at least have been trying to for thousands of years. They did rule once upon a time. You can read all about it in a history book. You will find it in the chapter titled, “The Dark Ages.”
You’re serious aren’t you?
Had it not been for the Catholic Church there likely would still exist marauding clans all over Europe heaping destruction and untold violence. It’s the Christian influence that eventually brought this several thousand-year old unrelenting tribal warfare to an end. Yes, history confirms the good the Church brought about in spite of a tendency of Europeans to commit genocide.
abusing innocent children is about as violent as it gets. No wait a minute. Put the abuser in a position of power and someone parents would not question, now, that’s violence. something the church knows too much about
What a load of crap. Did anyone ask them how they are coping with the “violence” being inflicted on them in their own state of Massachusetts? How ridiculous. No one is forcing them to say what constitutes marriage, as they claim. As a matter of fact, there is no forcing going on at all, unless they succeed in defeating this measure, in which case many couples who want to get married will be FORCED to stay single.
These people are a joke and they should go home.
My wife and I married in our fifties. Since we were past the age of being able to have a child, our marriage is illegitimate by the Church’s logic.
So why did you marry??? Or do you not care what the Church thinks, which would make your comment moot
Sooner or later it will be illegal and to the church immoral to marry if the end result won’t be children. Never know.it could happen.
Obviously, they married for the same reason gays and lesbians want marriage equality–to get all the legal protections automatically conferred by marriage. Duh. Are you really this stupid or just a troll?>?
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they married because they love each other and want to spend their lives together. Pretty much the only reason anyone should be getting married.
Why do YOU care why they choose to marry? Does it impact your life one bit? Do you believe YOU should have a say on their marriage?
Wow. The procreation only concept even more to the extreme. So, what were they supposed to do/ “Live in Sin” the way cohabitation was described a few decades ago. Keep it up, you’re severely damaging The Churches case.
Our sincere sympathies.
I’ve asked for an explanation of this very point and never have gotten an answer.
Not true Neal. Your marriages and many like yours are, indeed marriages, That is an example of one of the many misconceptions of what the
Church teaches.
A car is a vehicle. A vehicle is a mode of transportation. I have a car in my driveway. It is new. It works. I have a car behind my barn – well several – all in different stages of life and wear and tear. Some are totally broken. Some are in the need of repair. A bad engine. One is even there because it gets such a low mile per gallon it costs a fortune to run and I am just not going to use it. Besides that it is in great condition. You know what. They are all still vehicles. They don’t stop being vehicles because they old or broken. They are not couches, they are not trees, nor are they furniture pots. They are not couches.
Same as marriage. A heterosexual can choose not to have children , be too old, or suffer from the pain of infertility. They are still marriages.
Thank you that someone is!
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” – Matthew 7:3
I think the Catholic church would be wise to remember this verse when it comes to issues of sexual immorality.
Yes, I’m sure they do.
Probably why they are trying to save Maine.
Wouldn’t you think?
Save Maine from what?
Gay marriage constitutes “violence upon us”? Does it take a doctorate in theology to come up with that perspective? Did inter-racial marriage amount to “violence” when the democratic process legalized it? While the RC Church is free to “evangelize” as it sees fit in our democratic process, by doing so it should also respect the outcomes of that same process.
Haven’t checked, but I wonder if their degrees, doctoral and pre-doctoral, came from Jesuit schools.
I think the Catholic Church has much more serious issues concerning morality to deal with, such as learning to own the extent of responsibility for allowing child molesters to remain in the priesthood, treating the female clergy badly, the need for assistance to the homeless and the poor. This is why I am no longer a Catholic.
Are nuns considered clergy? They have been treated badly and there are no women priests.
Nuns are lay people who have consecrated themselves to God in a special way. Unfortunately, especially in this country, many of them have badly strayed from the Catholic faith and really are no longer Catholic in practice. They have not been treated badly; they have acted badly. What they have done is to abuse their position of respect within the Church, and have led many other Catholics away from the practice of the faith which would lead them to the salvation of their souls.
Wow, attacking the Good Sisters too, because they are “insufficiently homophobic,” huh?
You have an incredibly twisted philosophy. I recommend a daily dose of reality. You will be astonished at how different the real world is from your imagination.
Nuns are “”brides” of Christ …… does that make Christ a polygamist? Priests are “married” to the church …. does that mean that the church condones marriage between a man and an inanimate object? Wonder where the “slippery slope” arguments come from?
I’m well aware of the status of nuns and their position as second class citizens in The Church Heirarchy. I was commenting on the apparent implication that they were clergy. Obvioulsy not the case.
THAT’S RIGHT! NUNS HAVE ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED THEIR SACRED OATHS WHILE CATHOLIC PRIESTS WHO VIOLATED UNTOLD NOS. OF INNOCENT CHILDREN HAVE HARDLY MATTERED. GOD BLESS CARDINAL LAW AND THE OTHER CATHOLIC BISHOPS–LET’S GET STARTED ON THE ROAD TO SAINTHOOD FOR YOUR BELOVED CHURCH LEADERS.
You have been greatly deceived. Adherence to 100% of the teachings of the Catholic Church, which have been authorized by Jesus Christ and his apostles who founded the faith, is the surest path to the salvation of your soul. You are letting sinners get in your way of what the Catholic Church is all about. Catholics and non-Catholics alike focus WAY too much on the sexual abuse scandal. Most of the perpetrators have been gay men who have used the priesthood as a cover to gain access to the fulfillment of their deviant sexual desires. They are no more Catholic than most atheists, and they in no way represent the true teachings of the Catholic faith. But you, and many, many others, look at those perverted men as if they are products of Catholic teaching. They have acted in complete antithesis to the Catholic faith. If they are guilty of crimes, they should be punished, and they should be not considered Catholic unless they truly repent of their heinous crimes.
A typical cheap denial of the huge number of pedophile priests throughout much of the world. Sure they’re all mere “deviants” from church teachings. And what of Cardinal Law and his many fellow American, Irish, and other bishops who deliberately reassigned thousands of demented priests to preserve your beloved church and ruined the lives of so many boys and, let us not forget, girls? Nothing matters as long as Church doctrine is upheld. And what repentance would you suggest? The same as for Cardinal Law and his buddies? It amazes so many of us that holier than thou pure Catholics care far more for theology than for the victims of these hordes of sick priests and the superiors who blessed them. Better, of course, to chastize nuns as, of all people, supreme hpyocrite Cardinal Law has been doing from his handsome Vatican City perch. He should be in jail in Massachusetts. But of course he’s pure in your eyes and morally fit to sit in judgment of nuns. Pathetic.
“Most of the perpetrators have been gay men”
That’s a LIE. The FBI reports that those who commit those crimes are heterosexual men.
And of course, it’s a sin to lie….
But only if one is “under oath” ….. according to many posters here ;-)
But according to Muslims, the only way to get to heaven is by following Muhammed. And according to Jews, you can’t get there by following either Jesus or Muhammed. And according to Native American religions, all three of them are wrong. And Pagans have a different set of gods. Why should I (or anyone else) believe any of them, especially when they are all so obviously fake?
You should believe in Thor. Thor promised that he would get rid of all the ice giants. I don’t see any ice giants around…
Then can you explain the 87% of them that approve of or use birth control? The work of Satan?
My very good older friend of many years ‘”couldn’t attend” my mother’s funeral. Why?
Because his controlling religion thought he would be polluted by and “reading the Bible for yourself will lie and you ideas?! That’s so sad and insecure. This was from a Philly parochial school student of a 5000 member high school of boys in the 50s, and a 2 year DC seminary student (at 76 he’ll still walks around his kitchen absently self flagellating himself with a dish towel! He hasn’t been to Mass since the Latin was stopped!) I had no such compunction to going to my devoutly Catholic mom in law’s funeral as odd as the service was to this agnostic Pentecostal. When we traveled to an upstate NY nursing home for nuns 30 years ago for his aunt’s funeral, her ancient friend escorted us to the chapel and asked me if I was of the faith, she reassured me that we’re all children of God and it didn’t matter what faith. Now THAT is what Christ meant and what he wants us all to live by. Stop preaching, be a real Christian, and let people live without reciting an obviously pre-writen church speech. My friend and my wife were both raised Catholic,and will always be, but they escaped ‘the thumb’ and reached a comfort level of their own.
Gee! That was longer than yours! I won’t change your mind one iota, but it had to be said. Reality and faith CAN coexist.
What did Jesus say about gay marriage?
Problem is the Catholic Church hid the sexual abuse of children.
The Catholic Church condoned the sexual abuse of children by moving Priests from one parish to another where the Priests continued they sexual abuse activities.
The Catholic Church moved Cardinal Law from Boston to the Vatican where he is protected from having to testify in the multiple law suits filed by the victims and that move was made under cover of darkness like a criminal running from the law.
The Catholic Church has yet to hold a tour of Maine apologizing for and seeking forgiveness for the sexual abuse of minors at the hands of Priests.
The Catholic Church is in complete opposition to the teachings of Christ. There is no way that Christ would support this church, its flaunted wealth/materialism, unhealthy practices which stems from forcing clergy to remain single. Nuns used violence to get the “Indian” out of Native American children. The men who molested and raped children are a product of a warped religious movement.
So what teaching did they receive? As for the focus, tell that to the victims and their families. And, as before, the Catholic Church has no monopoly on morals, especially the way they’ve morphed in the past 2 millennia.
Kinda funny, but if you are married (one man, one woman) the Fed Gov penalized you on your income taxes –did it for years- I think they finally stoppped a few years ago, but as a married couple we paid the price for simply ages!!!! I thought the Church (any religion) was supposed to stay out of politics??? What exactly is meant by the Separation of Church and State??? Just curious, but WHAT EXACTLY does it mean if you are against the gay community getting married or forming a union?? How does it affect you driving on the road? going to and from work? Having a job? buying food for yourself?? Is the gay community going to ban you from the roads? keep you from getting your groceries? Holy cow, does no one ever think about live and let live??
So same sex marriage is considered violence by these two is it? And according to them marriage is about children. Really. If you want to talk about violence how about addressing the child sex abuse by priest. Imagine a kid being forced to perform sex acts upon someone who is looked up to and then if the kid complains no one believes him. Cardinal Law when he was Archbishop of Boston allowed just that to happen. As far as marriage being about children, nice try. Marriage is about love. Oh and when exactly was it that Maine people had to have people from away tell us what we should think?
“Violence against us”? Did they say that with a straight face?
Violence is beating up someone because he’s gay. Violence is raping someone to show her that she just needed a man. Violence is NOT disagreeing with Catholic on the legal definition of marriage.
Did they also discuss that straight people can still have sex and make kids with (or without) marriage? And that all sorts of individuals and couples can adopt?
AND-that there are some people out there who do NOT want kids?
Narrow-minded. Maybe they don’t like to be called bigots, okay. But how about narrow-minded zealots? They’d HAVE to agree with that description!
“Because marriage is inherently about children, governments took an
interest in licensing and regulating marriages, the couple argued.
Because same-sex couples cannot produce offspring, the definition should
not be changed to include them, the couple said.”
so…does this mean that male/female married couples who cannot conceive children should have their marriages annulled or otherwise dissolved? What about those male/female couples who chose to marry but do not want children? Should they not be allowed to marry because of the above definition of marriage? And if marriage is about children, then what about same sex couples who produce children either through sperm donors, or surrogates? What about same sex couples who adopt children into stable, loving homes?
Marriage is about children, they say, but what about all the married heterosexual couples who bring children into the world, then are so unhappy together that they make their lives and the lives of their children living hell?
The problem with trying to dictate a narrow vision of marriage is that there is no easy answer, no “one size fits all”. And yet, because so many of these religious zealots look at the world through lenses that narrow the spectrum to black or white, they can only see the world view they espouse as the “right” one and everyone else, no matter what their circumstance, is wrong.
Why not accept that not everyone fits the traditional definition of marriage and family. Why not make room for a broader definition? Why is that so threatening? I believe the louder these people protest, the more afraid they are, perhaps of something they try to hide within themselves. The bottom line is that God, or whatever you call him or her, is Love. Those who practice love without regard to differences, honor God, who made the world in all its infinite variety and beauty.
Actually civil marriage licenses came into being as a way to legally forbid inter-racial marriage and to enforce the ban on the poygamy practiced by Mormons.
And the civil marriage processes in Europe? When do they date from?
Gopher40 …. I am 100% for civil marraige rights for LGBT citizens …. when the Puritans arrived on the continent, marriage was a civil issue and clergy were not officiants. They were given the courtesy later. The Civil Marriage License is a Legal Civil Contract and does not require or mandate any religious acceptance nor should it.
I am a recently widowed but neither the state of Maine nor the US government recognizes me as a widow because they did not and do not recognize the marriage between my wife and myself. Even though our vows were witnessed by a clergy member, as many heterosexual couples choose to have theirs witnessed, we were not allowed by law to apply for a Civil Marriage License.
What a waste of time. I suppose if you have your marching orders from the pope, you do what he tells you to.
if you don’t have a brain….
Practicing Catholics have used their brains to the fullest. They realize that eternity is what really counts, instead of living as you care to live, no matter what God thinks, for a mere 70 or so years on earth. What happens after this life depends entirely on how you live this short life we are living in now.
Threatening other Americans with your plaster deity is really getting old.
Oh, yes, like denying that the earth was round and that it orbited around the sun. And let’s not forget about the inquisition. Truly signs of practicing catholics using their brains to the fullest.
What happens after this life is called death. It generally involves becoming worm food. If you have evidence that something else happens, we’d all love to see it.
The Roman Catholic Church should worry about the sexual lives of their Priest and who they abused before they worry about two consenting adults do behind closed doors. Why hasn’t the church traveled the state apologizing for and asking for forgiveness over the sexual abuse of children by Priests?
Apparently only accepting the Gospel of John. The teachings of Christ in the other Gospels stress the gift of salvation, extension to the Gentiles (fortunate for most of us, correct), and striving for heaven on earth by constructive response to the gift.
Is this the same catholic church that defends and hides child molesters? I can only believe by their actions they approve of that activity, so why not same sex marriage. Or, don’t they approve of the consenting adults part.
Probably closer to centuries
live and let live. life is short. denying anyone happiness should only be done by repressed busybodies. the information age is upon us and it becomes easier to resist the theories and lessen the hold of all the “odd ducks doing god’s work”
If they want to participate in politics, then that’s fine , but they should pay taxes.
OH I’m sure they do. Income is taxable no matter who you work for.
Ah but church property is not!
I for one, hope that SSM passes, it opens a door for the rest of us. When they say marriage equality for everyone I hope they are not planning to exclude bi-sexuals, I dont think they should have to choose to marry only one partner but should be able to marry one person of each sex. Then the polygamists can stand up for my rights to have more than one spouse …..and each of those spouses can have more than one spouse and so on….. and if everyone in the State joins in……… We can ALL be covered on my health insurance policy….. its a win-win for the whole state…. Good-bye Obama Care!!
While I’m reluctant to even reply to that absurd and sad argument, I will and just did!
Makes sense to me.
Non-sense?
That has got to be the funniest thing I have heard all day!
Check out that video, and ask yourself “Do I want to take advice about sex from them”? …Seriously ?
As someone who is unable to have children, I find it most offensive that the Catholic Church says that marriage is inherently about children. Now they want to deny me marriage as well?
They are expressing an opinion, You may if you want, have a gay march to express you opinion,, OH! wait that has be done before.. or feed school children your aganda from grammar school on up.
.. and when they express their opinion everyone else has can and may express theirs. If you don’t want to hear others’ opinions don’t read the comments. OH! wait.. the Catholic church doesn’t want anyone using their brains.. so no opinions, right?!
When you lose in November are you going to blame the Catholics.. I’m expected to except that sex between 2 or more men is normal, yet you don’t want to except God..
You seem so sure that anti-gays will win. We KNOW for a FACT anti-gays CHEATED in 2009. Are you involved in CHEATING this time too?
Please tell me why any thinking person should believe in an obviously made-up being like god?
By the way, homosexual behavior has been documented in nonhuman animals thousands and thousands of times. Why is it so difficult for you to accept (not “except”) that it is normal and natural?
God bless America,Land that I love.Stand beside her, and guide herThrough the night with a light from above.From the mountains, to the prairies,To the oceans, white with foam
Why do those that oppose SSM only focus on the sexual acts of men?
Because they actually like the sexual acts of women…
Again ….. another poster who defines marriage as sexual relations. I thought society had evolved and that marriage was more about love, committment, honoring and supporting each other, taking care of each other and spending a lifetime together. Evidently some in our society have not ….. pushtheredbutton and others still see marriage as nothing more than legitimizing sexual relations.
Pretty confident aren’t you? Maybe more like Quixoitc. Actually, if Prop 1 doesn’t pass, I’ll blame the lack of thought, propaganda,and outright prevarication from the Catholics and other religious conservatives.
“feed school children your aganda from grammar school on up.”
Anti-gays claim that all the time, but where’s your PROOF?????
Can you explain the process for and adoption of school curriculum in Maine?
where in chcurtis’ state that they are gay? IMHO this person is not gay, but a married hetero. women that can’t have children, Your hate fulled post was uncalled for, and way one of line!
You have no basis to assume that this person is gay. They could be speaking for all couples, including hetero, who are infertile. That’s quite a large number.
Speaking of agendas, how do you describe your opinions?
Their views on this is no secret. As I recall, denial of children to a Catholic spouse is grounds for annulment.
I also couldn’t have children, My husband, and I both were older when we got married. We married because we loved each other. Besides gay have children, every day, so the point is moot.
At this point, it’s hard to believe there are undecided voters on this question who need yet another sermon. Why this couple should think they have something to add is beyond me. But then, the idea of taking the message of the holiest of holies to the great unwashed is probably attractive. Do they get merit badges for that sort of thing?
Nothing said about the attendance at these crusades. Preaching to the choir?
If they oppose same sex marriage, then don’t have a same-sex marriage. Otherwise, leave each to his or her own. BUTT OUT of PRIVATE lives.
Curious, is it not, that the self-righteous couple do not mention how many children they now have and hope to have and, if they have none, where do they get off imposing procreation on others? Rest assured that, if they had children who were gay, they’d reconsider their position very quickly. Their faith has no right to tell others of different faiths what should be legal in Maine or anywhere else.
I guess same-sex only works for the catholic church when it involves a priest and an altar boy?
Ziiiiinnnng!
they were at the KC hall in Old Town? is this the same Old Town where i went to high school and it was not uncommon to see people hassling students they thought were “queer” and then going to church at St. Joesph on Sunday?
Well, it is Old Town, Maine. The same Old Town, Maine, where the No on One vote (for SSM) prevailed in 2009 (but barely).
And what about the gay students at Old Town High School who bully and harass students who don’t agree with SSM?
Huh? You have evidence of this?
Not a chance, anti-gays always lie.
yep
Well if you do, put it out there.
ha. ha. ha. not only is there NO evidence of that, but when i was there
30 years ago there was no flippin way anyone was talking about ssm, let
alone bullying or harassing. as far as i remember the idea of ssm
didn’t even exist.
you wanna know what i have evidence of that
was happening around about that time as far as the treatment of gays and
straights went? Charlie Howard.
done. nuff said
You should have attended school there 4 years ago. I experienced it first hand and the wimpy principal at the time was afraid to deal with it.
“You should have attended school there 4 years ago.”
pass on that.
where is your proof of having been bullied and harassed by students supporting ssm? otherwise yer just running off at the mouth and that is never attractive
Nothing said about the attendance. From the looks of the video clip on the news this morning, not very well populated and the ones there looked pretty “gray”.
SIN is SIN and homosexual “marriage” is a SIN – may the church continute to stand for what the bible teaches against.
What a sad day when people support this sin! Read the bible.
ummm that would be your “book”, not everyones….why do Christians not get that? Why does everyone have to follow your rules, and if they dont they are “wrong”?
When us Christians bring that up I want to share that marriage comes from the Bible and Christian veiws. This is what the big hang up is. I dont “hate” anyone however, I dont agree with it because it is a sin. I will not vote to pass it.
Why is it that people like you feel a need to impose your religious beliefs on everyone else? Not everyone believes in that book of fairy tales.
My point was taken well then as I stated Marriage is from the Bible and if you choose not to believe those “fairy tails” that’s between you and God. But I would not be doing my job as a believer or Christian if I did not share it is a Sin.
The law we are voting on does not impact my marriage one bit. It doesn’t “change” how my church views SSM (it doesn’t support it). It doesn’t force a church or any ordained person to perform a SSM.
What the law does do is allow the state to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple just like it does for “straight” couples. That is all this law does.
The Catholic Sacrament of Marriage and other Christian church policies on marriage are distinct from granting of marriage licenses. If it’s a sin for your church marriages, fine. But don’t participate in SSM, you don’t have to.
Marriage existed long before the bible.
“… marriage comes from the bible”
like a man, his wife and his concubines like Abraham, Nahor, Gideon Jacob and Solomon?
or a man and his brothers widow who must submit to her brother -in- law if she has no children? like Er, Onan, and Tamar?
or like when a rapist is required to marry his rape victim? course “justice” is served if the rapist pays the father 50 shekels …. Duet.22, 28-29
or were you thinking more along the lines of the virgin spoils of war who were married off to Israelite soldiers? well, after their parents had been killed of course…Num.31, 18-19
polygamy, concubines and making your dead brothers wife have sex with you, after she is forced to marry you, virgin war brides….
Dude- if we started having marriages like in the bible, your Christian God loving head would just flippin’ explode.
sign me up for a concubine or two, that is until my wife kills me for it, then my brother has to marry her. wow, hope she likes Alaska…RFLMAO
You are not forced to pay attention to them. What cause are you arguing for??. I don’t believe the State should pay for bike trails or hiking paths for 1/50th of 1 percent of Mainers
Just as we should not be forced to adhere to their invalid policies on marriage licenses.
There is no cost to Maine taxpayers if we vote to uphold the United States Constitution and establish marriage equality. There is no savings to Maine taxpayers by hurting LGBT Mainers.
When it comes to SSM “You are not forced to pay attention to them” either. And exactly what is the “cost” of SSM to the State of Maine?
In we should have to pay attention to your false, misguided propaganda.
(Sorry for the redundancy)
Not all Christians agree with the Catholic rules and views on marriage.
Sin is an artificial construct devised by one group of people to control another, less powerful, less well-educated group through emotional manipulation. It’s not relevant in a free and egalitarian society. Not that ours truly is one, you understand, but that’s the ideal toward which we’re supposed to be reaching.
Welcome to the future. It’s better here.
The bible doesn’t teach against… ignorant people do!
Remember, your views apply to the sacrament of marriage, at least in Catholic and other conservative churches, not to the legality of marriage licenses.
Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia. For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1850. Many major Christian and Jewish denominations condemn misusing the hate-based mistranslations to attack their fellow Americans and are marrying same gender American couples now. About 400-years ago, a group of religious authorities (sanctioned by King James I of England), secretly manipulated the English version of the Bible to reflect their own heterosexual attitude; they opposed the king kissing other men in public. But in revised versions, religious authorities re-defined the Greek word “arsenokoites” of 1Corinthians 6:9! The most accurate translation, abusers of themselves with mankind [KJV], was pretty vague. Nevertheless, they replaced this vague 5-worded text with the not so vague and purposely targeted 1-word text, “homosexual(s).” Either way you cut it, this text does not describe homosexuals. This campaign gave those who were looking for a reason to justify their own homophobia a license to openly express their bigotry.
Read “In the Beginning”, and account of the KJV and translations that preceded it. There was spin on several passages put in translations from the Latin Vulgate to the KJV.
The concept of sin is fine inside your church. Keep it there. It has no place in modern society. We have laws for determining right and wrong these days.
Do you have any more valid “authority” than a book of myths put together by uneducated cave-dwelling goat herders (who assumed the world was flat) sitting around the ole campfire in the evenings and trying to make sense of a universe of which they had no real knowledge? Also, where in the bible does it specifically mention gay marriage? Also, do you eat shellfish? Isn’t that a “sin” according to your ancient book of fairy tales?
So is sexual abusing a child but the Catholic Church didn’t do much to stop their Priests for committing that sin…or crime did it?
I do read the Bible. I come away from it wanting to be the same loving entity that Christ was when he walked on this earth. I choose to come away from reading the Bible focused on the unconditional love of Christ. You choose to come away and focus on what you consider to be sin. Sad.
SIN is SIN …… and Christians know that we all SIN ….. we are all SINNERS. The Bible teaches against ALL SIN. Are you less of a SINNER or commit lesser SINS than any one of your neighbors? Does civil law punish human beings for each and every SIN they commit?
No, since it’s not their job to define sin. And your definitions, like Nebuchadnezzar, are often found wanting.
My point Gopher is that if they wish to disallow people they deem as sinners to marry, there would be no marriage as they often state no human is free of sin …
No…but I commit a greater sin by covering up my neighbors’ sins which I knew about, which I knew hurt the people they–and I–were suppose to protect. Oh, and my neighbors work for me, so really I am complicit in their sin. And as such I wouldn’t hold myself up afterward as a moral authority.
They should take care of their own house before hitting the road….
Time for some more name calling. Hate from both sides.
Not much hate from pro-SSM unless in retaliation for hate from the conservatives and Catholics.
But anti-gays constantly WHINE that their intended victims are “the real haters.” It’s perhaps the most obvious LIE anti-gays tell.
When was the last time a “straight” person was beating, etc….for who they slept with?
I guess you don’t watch “Snapped.” Neither do I, but I hear it’s pretty educational.
And what does “Snapped” have to do with anything concerning SSM?
Perhaps they should be begging forgiveness for covering up untold numbers of pedophile priests.
And demanding that priests and nuns can marry.
Yessah
“Marriage is about children,” Angela Franks said.
According to the bible, traditional marriage is about property. A man married a woman (often arranged) and then gained her as property (she is subordinate to him). Plus, her physical property became his property(Genesis 16). This wouldn’t work with a male/male relationship (who would be the head of household?)…
Apparently these two with theology doctorates haven’t looked at how life (and marriage) has changed in 2,000 years. A man and a woman are now treated as equals and marriage is about love (and a few legal benefits). And we don’t typically arrange marriages or provide dowries anymore.
If we were to go back to the bible’s definition(s) of marriage, women would be in a bit of trouble. They would basically be property. Men could have multiple wives, and concubines as wives. If a woman’s husband passed away before she had a child, she would have to marry his brother. Clearly the establishment of marriage has changed and to say that it is [now] just about kids is bologna. Maybe back when Christ was around and it would have been in a couple’s best interest to have a bunch of kids to take over the family business/farm/what-have-you. Gay couples can already adopt kids, what is wrong with them legalizing their union?
Are you preaching again?
I thought I was just commenting on a news article. But now I’m not so sure.
Rightly so, more so than this hypocritical couple.
Isn’t that what you are advocating? A return to traditional religious values?
Better make sure you’re not wearing clothes made from more than one type of fabric…
Hemp
You are free to believe that it is a sin, that is your faith, but you don’t have to impose it on others. Leave it to your God to impart judgment or whatever if/when that day comes.
Married couple advocating the withholding of marriage from others: textbook “I Got Mine, Jack” scenario. Like so many things in this brutal century, it’d be funny if it wasn’t so tragic.
Would this be the same church that will annul a marriage (if you make a large enough donation) despite the fact that there are frequently several children from the marriage? Ironic.
They are not forcing people to attend.. I am sure that people that listened are of the same mind set.. So what is the big deal about people having an opinion also they have first amendment rights, don’t they…
Ah, but they’re advocating forcing the state not to issue marriage licenses even though the reasons are valid.
The Catholic Church is entitled to their own view on marriage, however society will necessarily evolve and adapt to changing perceptions and attitudes and implement laws that reflect the prevailing opinion of the majority for tolerance and acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and legalizing same-sex marriage appears to be an example of society moving forward regardless of the arguments put forth by the Catholic Church to perpetuate the ideological belief that the institution of marriage is solely the right of heterosexual partners.
“Last stand”? Getting desperate, aren’t we?
McTighe makes the correct distinction: the Franks and the Catholics are describing the sacrament of marriage. The issuance of marriage licenses is the prerogative of the state and that’s what SSM is about.
Marriage is not just about children. Many heterocouples can’t have children either so they adopt, try IV fertilization, etc. (that’s right, the Catholics took a while to get used to the latter, maybe even still don’t). Granted, children are important to many marriages and families, but to
imply that infertile couples are somehow second class citizens is close to the ultimate in insults.
Just vote the way the Pope tells you and we all go to heaven.
Voting according to the pope may not be the full ticket to heaven, but it certainly won’t hurt your cause.
What other foreign despots do you want us to take voting “advice” from?
Wow. A chink in the armor.
I would be very happy if the Catholic chuch was in charge of justice in this country and ran the police departmant, jails and court system… Life was much better in this country when there was more people attending church and feared the wrath of God.. The faithless are distroying this once great country.
You could save everyone the grief and just move to Iran now.
Yup. You’re EXACTLY WHY our Constitution has separation of church and state. To keep us safe from WHACKOS like you.
Tell that to the victims of the Salem witch trials.
“I would be very happy if the Catholic chuch was in charge of justice in this country and ran the police departmant, jails and court system…”
Yes is sure would have made it easier for the church to hide the Priests sexual abuse of children.
~~~~~
“Life was much better in this country when there was more people attending church and feared the wrath of God..”
Seems to me rather than teaching the faithful to fear the “wrath of God” it taught the faithful to fear the “Priests”.
You’ve really gone over the wall on this one. Always suspected that many religious conservatives had the agenda of a theocracy. Now we know. Deus Irae? anothe example of control by The Church.
“Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
– Tacitus (56-117) on Christianity, Annals Book XV chapter 44 (ca. AD 116)
It’s interesting how the same rhetoric (“all things hideous and shameful…”) turns up in the mouths of Christians deploring other people’s way of life nowadays. And so the wheel turns.
This country certainly *seemed* much better when it appeared to be more homogenous.
I will thank my God and yours that neither the Catholic Church, nor any other unelected, faith-based organization, is in charge of my justice system.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT CONDONE SEX BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER… unless one of the people is a choir boy and it isn’t concentual. That’s alright
I think this video is a pretty good representation of what this vote means for us. As a life long Catholic I believe that God is love and this video represents love, it is too bad that love is being taken out of the debate by many, but not all religious leaders.
https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/marriage-equality/love-story/watch-the-video
These denominations have married same gender couples in 7 US States and the District of Columbia:
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Metropolitan Community Church
Reform Judaism
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
Unitarian Universalist Church
United Church of Christ
Other individual churches are disregarding their denomination’s homophobia and are marrying same gender couples, such as Baptist churches.
These and many other denominations reject the hate speech inserted in the bible to hurt LGBT people. Modern Biblical scholars have proven the Bible was intentionally mistranslated relatively recently in order to provide “Biblical cover” for then-rising levels of homophobia. For example, the word “homosexual” didn’t even exist until 1850.
It’s too bad the Catholic hierarchy doesn’t respect their Freedom Of Religion, but, fortunately, most lay Catholics DO, and support marriage equality for their family members and friends who are LGBT.
“Marriage is about children.” Crawl back into your caves.
So what they are saying is that unless you have children as soon as you get married, your marriage should be annulled. And once a woman enters menopause, her marriage should also be annulled. And any man who has an accidental castration should not be allowed to marry.
This is another load of hateful crap, courtesy of your local religious nutjobs.
On the same note …. men who are impotent or become impotent should not be allowed to marry and/or have their marriages annulled. :-) ( ya can’t be using artificial means to fix the problem that goes against nature)
what a bunch of jokers im gonna vote for it just to counter these jokers like Gay Marriage is going to deminish or ruin the sanctaty of marriage…..i think all the cheating divorcing couples have done that…..
How about telling the mackeral snappers….Hey, dude….Mind your own business…..and by the way….What are you doing about pedophile priests?
The Catholic church is making incredibly weak arguments for maintaining the status quo.
“‘Marriage is about children,’ Angela Franks said. ‘Marriage is this relationship in which children are given the optimal environment in which to be raised.'”
Sorry, but it’s not. When is the church going to move to outlaw marriage between two people who cannot or do not want children?
They are being dishonest about the doctrines of their religion. SSM is automatically out of the question for a religion that forbids homosexuality. This is a spin game of theirs. Get the official doctrines and canon law at any good library. It’s viewed as sin. Same goes for outright denial (refusing to believe) in things like papal infallibility. Ignorance and lack of understanding are allowed as long as you don’t refuse to believe. I will always deny papal infallibility so I can never become a catholic. That’s the way a priest explained it to me when I had questions about the book he gave me to read. In other words, he thinks I’m going to hell. You’re dealing with people who believe their priests have “magic” powers until they die. They don’t believe that priests who molest children lose those powers. Of course I don’t believe they have those powers in the first place. If I believed that I would say you have to burn them at the stake or behead them to prevent them from saying another mass or hearing another confession.
This evil institution needs to lose its tax-free status. I think an industrial-strength audit would be appropriate.
Lucy–I certainly agree that ALL religious groups that insist on injecting their so-called
“moral” views into civil matters be taxed.. Marriage is a civil institutuion and its rights and responsibilities should be available to all couples who wish to enter into a contract with each other.
This couple lost their fight in MA so now they are taking their bigoted ways on the road to Maine. Explain to me again how same sex marriage effects them? Oh yea, that’s right…IT DOESN’T. Go back to MA and leave this up to the people of Maine who I feel will become the first State in this country to pass a same sex marriage law at the ballot box.
Hypocrites!
Twenty years from now current young Americans will have children
their own current age. They will have witnessed the birth of their babies and
marveled that her body could have possibly presented brand new, perfect life to
their custody with no instruction from either’s intellect and from that day on
they will be forever changed. Instinct should be enough to preserve traditional
marriage as the union of one man and one woman despite all that has challenged
the institution. The moment of first breath melts us in the hush of incredible
goodness and we know we have to do better for them as the blush fades from the
bud. Instinct naturally births protectiveness for babies but way too often we
have fallen short. The Christian beliefs so many of us hold need to be
re-affirmed, constantly. Sinners and imperfect, all of us, we know what we need
to do and know that it’s up to no one else.
Same sex marriage supporters are sure our natural born will
finish the walk we started back in the sixties away from what we know as the
best method of protecting our families. This current debate is all about us too
whether or not the debate opposition wants to respect our beliefs and opinions.
Despite charges that we obsess about their lives and relationships that’s never
been true for most of us who have been busy living our own. Human relationships
fail all the time, whether traditional or otherwise but we know the definition
of marriage and have the responsibility to preserve it through our own example
with vows of commitment to one man, and one woman for reasons which need no
explanation and which cannot be dismissed without your vote.
Supporters of same-sex marriage will attack this post but I
will pre-advise them there will be no further volleys from me in reply as this message
is not meant for them.
Very poetic, well written, but your views have no bearing on how children are raised in any family (a personal matter, if you want to raise them the traditional way, OK) but especially on the legal aspects of the state’s issuance of a marriage license.
You mean instinct to subjugate and control.
It is already clear that the younger generation whole heartedly supports equal rights for all.
This is not at all about respecting your opinions or beliefs, or about protecting families.
You have made yourself heard, but I am sure that you are aware that there are multitudes of Christians who completely disagree with you on this matter of civil liberties for all.
Yes, let’s all get together, and hold back the tide. We’ll stop time and halt or reverse change. Seems legit.
The whole “discussion”, pro or con, concerning marrage, is laughable and does not amount to a hill of beans.
What gives us the right to tell people how to live their lives? Is this our job to judge them? These are tax paying citizens, not leaching off society. They pay taxes just like the rest of us. How about we worry about the important things that really matter? Will I to have a job tomorrow? Will I be able to pay my mortage ? Can I afford food? And put gas in my car to get to work. What if i get sick? These are the issues that matter. Seriosuly we have to bud out of other peoples lives. It has nothing to do with us. And it doesn’t matter. I don’t see anything in the Bible telling us to judging our neighbor. One if the 10 commandments is, You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Chris Kluwe wrote a particularly scathing letter on this topic. It is on deadspin if anyone is interested, but the line that stands out the most is ” they won’t magically turn you into a lustful c***monster.”
If gay people want to marry, leave them alone and let them get married. It won’t affect anything I do I my life.
The Catholic church should hang its head in shame. Oddly enough, the very word “catholic” means “free from provincial prejudices.” Today’s Catholic church is nothing but another example of the religious rights’ values…and I am so glad I left while my faith was still intact. I will never patronize another church as long as I live.
Another meaning is universal, sort of equivalent to your definition. Un-capitalized, catholic is used in this sense in the version of the Apostles Creed recited in many Protestant churches.
True, Gopher40,and it was also in the Catholic church version of the Apostles Creed…but perish the thought that it would be actually practiced.
Just Vote!….again
Vote yes (this time) on Prop 1.
Why didn’t the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland hold a series of meetings across the state apologizing for and seeking forgiveness for the child sex abuse scandal?
“…about children.” Where were you, Franks, when priests violated hundreds of them? Hypocrites?
Incredibly selfish. Please articulate how someone else being as free as you makes you less free. Someone is free to be Jewish, does that make you unable to be a Catholic? Someone is free to be Jewish, does that mean you have to be Jewish too?
Respect others, even if you disagree with them. Don’t try and use the law against them.
the church is dying.
About time too.
Why are we even considering changing the definition of marriage for 2% of the population.
It’s a deversion the Goverment would rather be involved in this than the real issues , in today’s society wont win them votes. And what happened to Seperation of Church and state.
The separation is a valid one between church sanctioned marriages (a Sacrament in one) and the state-issued marriage license.
I don’t know ….. why the heck did the definition of marriage change back in ’67 to allow inter-racial marriage ….. certainly only a small percentage of the population wanted to marry someone of another race? Oh that’s right … because it was the correct thing to do ….. allowing interracial couples to be allowed to be equally recognized by civil law.
So that all of our fellow citizens will have equal rights under the law.
This is yet another reason that I left the Catholic Church. I know many others who feel the same.
It is by God’s design that marriage should be between a man and a woman, period. There is no “wiggle room” in this matter among people of faith. It is only a moral dilemma for people who do not believe in God. You can’t have it both ways. Please keep in mind, before opening fire, that if you do not respect my right to have a difference of opinion in the matter, that makes you the bigot.
“Pope Benedict XVI told Irish Catholics on Sunday it is a mystery why priests and other church officials abused children entrusted in their care.”
good explanation.
I respect your right to have a difference of opinion, the same way that I respect the right for the KKK to have a difference of opinion. That doesn’t mean that I respect your actual opinion. I’d also like to say that freedom of speech =/= freedom from criticism.
Your opinion, fine. But don’t try to legislate it where it doesn’t apply.
Good point. But, I am not trying to legislate it, the LGBT community is. I actually have no skin in the game, as they say. I come from an extremely large family and I have more than fifty first cousins, none of which are members of the LGBT community. My kids , grand kids, and circle of friends are also all heterosexual.
You know what? I bet that’s not actually true… even if you believe it is.
Think what ever you want if it lends validity to your views. They are all married to someone of the opposite sex and most have children. Probably just to cover up their homosexual tendencies, right? Cover wife, cover husband, and cover kids! lol.
You have a very peculiar sense of humor.
Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group with intolerance
I’ll be sure and write that down. I have lived with and worked with blacks, Asians, Amerinds, and other whites from all walks of life and have never been called a bigot before I said gay marriage challenges my faith and doesn’t feel right to me. I’ll find a way to carry on.
I’ll be sure and write that down. I have lived with and worked with blacks, Asians, Amerinds, and other whites from all walks of life and have never been called a bigot before I said gay marriage challenges my faith and doesn’t feel right to me. I’ll find a way to carry on.
Guess that you did not disparage them as you have the gay community.
This shows just how low our society has dropped.When the state has to vote to protect the moral fabric of the U.S. JUST VOTE NO.
To the contrary. Vote yes on 1.
What really shows just how low our society has dropped is when we are putting the rights of a minority group up for a vote…
Whose morals are the yardstick we’re using again?
Apparantly, the people who cover up child abuse and, if the abuser is caught, those same people pay for their defense costs are supposed to be our moral beacon…
Why? What is your rational argument against same-sex marriage?
After all… the catholics push a religion entirely founded on incest, and you are calling love and commitment immoral?
Really?!
Misplaced post.
Freedom of religion does not equal freedom to take away the rights of others.
Gay marriage, yes the catholic church is against it but so isn’t Islamic religion and most other faiths. Gay marriage in not the Norm and shouldn’t be presented as such.
Just because something isn’t the ‘norm’ for you or I doesn’t mean it isn’t the ‘norm’ for someone else……..who are you to judge?
a life of buggery is not normal or healthy
‘Buggery?’ Seriously? Then I guess you don’t have a life of ‘buggery’ but leave others to decide for themselves about their bugs because goodness knows that heterosexual people NEVER bugger. Pfffffffffffffffft.
Kind of excludes relationships of women and many heterosexuals.
I find it interesting that when DIVORCE is at an all time high, the church isn’t all wound up about that. Heterosexual relationships nad marriage are not really setting much of an example are they? So, until “death do us part” other than murdering your spouse, maybe they should mind their own business. I don’t think they should be campaigning anyway, remember separation of Church and State?
Too bad they didn’t travel and chat against the Catholic Church’s problem with pedophiles….what a load of manure.
It is safer to drive a snowmobile on thin ice than to discuss politics or religion in print.
Would you dare say anything like this? “I think the Catholic Church has much more serious issues concerning morality to deal with, such as … allowing child molesters to remain in the priesthood.”
Or, “I have trouble seeing our Savior walking down the aisle, decked out in a scarlet biretta and swinging a little smoking ball.”
“I’ve been a pretty serious student of the Bible for over 40 years and I have yet to find a verse where Jesus stood before a television camera and begged people to send him money.”
“Jesus was a Socialist if not an outright commy. Feed the hungry? Heal the sick? How long you going to be in business pushing that agenda from a pulpit in this day and age? Gotta get a little jealousy and hate in there to push them economic buttons.”
“I don’t see no difference between a petofile and a homosexual. If they’d get down on their knees and pray, they could change if they really was sincere.”
To be fair, organized religion has come a long way and to the best of my knowledge the church hasn’t burned an English Baptist since 1612.
In 400 more years homosexual marriage might well be one of the sacraments.
The humble Farmer
If you have to make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your faith or morals, then you have no true morals or faith to speak of.
Oh so much to say. So many different opinions, feelings and confusion.. If everyone could just see it in its simplest form… LOVE! That is why we marry. For love. For commitment. For family… All brought together by LOVE. Not God. Not Law. Not to please anyone but each other. We may marry UNDER God.. but not FOR Him. I do not believe in God (no backlash needed, I know your opinion) and I didn’t get married in a church. I did marry a man and we do have a family. A lot of my beliefs of today I didn’t 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Who am I, as a person to NOT support some of my closest GAY friends in marriage. They may be women marrying women or men marrying men.. but you know what… Their vows are just the same as mine were. To love, honor and cherish until death do us part! EVERYONE who wants that WILL have that! Just wait and see…….
I don’t know why– it just seems wrong to me–I’m not religious and I have nothing against gays just something inside me says marriage is between a male and female – so I will vote on that.
you really thought that one out.
Yeah well at least i’m not swayed by what other people think–thnx for your sarcastic wit.
Yeah, who needs “facts”, “logic”, and “reality”. After all, those are just some “liberal” ideas…
While it may seem wrong to you by voting against SSM you are actually voting against your fellow citizens equal rights. You are harming them. Are you comfortable with that.
It is not necessary for you to be comfortable with SSM. It really is not about your life.
Why not consider not voting on this issue at all. Are you comfortable voting about another’s civil rights ?
You respect the right of the KKK to have a difference of opinion? Isn’t that akin to defending someone’s right to be a racist or religious extremist? Or were you just trying to hitch my wagon to that of a bunch of dim wits who hide behind sheets?
The KKK hide behind sheets in the same way you hide behind your bible. Hate is hate, regardless of where it is coming from and who is it directed towards. Also, a person does have the right to be a racist or a religious extremist, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others or break any laws.
I beg to differ. I do not “hide” behind my bible in the same way a racist dim wit hides behind a sheet. I am actually very open in my belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No need to hide behind anything. You are right though about hate being hate. Which is why I find great peace in the fact that I do not hate anyone. To insinuate that having a difference of opinion implies a capacity for hate is judgmental, at best.
Of course you hide behind your bible. You don’t think that LGBT citizens should be treated equally under the law, and you try to justify it saying “Oh it’s in the bible and my religious beliefs should trump the Constitution”. I would honestly have a lot more respect for you if you just came right out and said “I don’t like gay people. It makes me uncomfortable”. I’d still think you had a disgusting opinion, but at least you would be honest. To insinuate that certain Americans should not be treated as equal citizens is hateful, at best.
“Oh it’s in the bible and my religious beliefs should trump the constitution”. I’m sorry, did you just try to put words in my mouth to try and bolster your side of the debate? You would have more respect for me if I said “I don’t like gay people. It makes me uncomfortable”? Good to know. If I ever feel the need for your approval, I now know the path that will lead me there. Thanks.
I didn’t put words in your mouth, I just paraphrased a bit. You feel that your biblical belief of marriage being between a man and a woman should trump the constitutional right of equal protection under the law. As for the second part, just explaining why I have more respect for the KKK and the Wesborough Baptist church than I have for you. At least they are honest and upfront about hating me. You, instead, cowardly hide behind your bible as if that justifies your bigotry.
Oh, I am sorry. Apparently I can not tell the difference between “para phrasing” and someone attempting to put words in my mouth. I’ll make a note of that. I am glad that you have more respect for the KKK and the WBC than you do for me. They are highly respected among extremist nut jobs. You are in good company. It is also nice that you would put me below these fine organizations based solely on my opinion on one issue. Nothing hate based there. I guess I had better keep my opinions about gun control or abortions of convenience under my hat before I end up below Hitler, in your esteemed opinion.
No, not completely because of your opinion, a major portion is based on the fact that I value honesty in people. The WBC and the KKK are terrible, hate filled organizations, but, like I said, they will be honest about their hate. They don’t make excuses like you. I also find it amusing that the person who wants to deny me my rights as an American citizen is attempting to take the moral high-ground in this situation. As for me being in good company with the WBC or the KKK, I don’t think they would take too kindly to a gay person. They would probably like you much more. And how about those stereotypes, eh? You assume that because I support marriage equality that I am also against guns and for abortions. While I personally do not like guns, I also, *gasp* mind my OWN business (maybe you could learn something?) and recognize that the ability to own guns is a constitutional right, much like equal protection under the law. Same with abortions, I don’t like that they need to happen, but, once again, I mind my OWN business.
“They don’t make excuses like you”? So, in your opinion, my faith is an “excuse”? Well, excuse me. I never assumed your position on gun control or abortion. Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I simply stated that I would probably invite comparisons to Hitler, given the rapid erosion of the current debate. So, in your opinion, would I be minding my own business if i stayed home from the polls? Should I not stick my nose where it doesn’t belong, in a voting booth? You know. To stand in silence is to stand in agreement. BTW, I like to think that the KKK and the WBC would find my presence very, very uncomfortable. But, it is your assumption, make it as big as you like.
“I guess I had better keep my opinions about gun control or abortions of convenience under my hat before I end up below Hitler, in your esteemed opinion.” – Implying you know about my position on those issues before I stated my opinion. And, I will be honest, I do see your “faith” as an excuse to treat your fellow citizens poorly. Just because you wrap your bigotry in religion doesn’t make it ok. I’m tired of being nice to people who tell me I am a second class citizen. It’s not a matter of simply voting. I don’t care who you vote for in the election. It’s the idea of you voting against someone else’s rights that I find disgusting. But please, let your persecution complex continue working into overdrive. You are not the one who has anything to lose. No matter what happens with the vote, you walk away as a full citizen. Same sex couples do not have that same privilege.
I said PROBABLY invite comparison. Not exactly a definitive statement about your position. But, the bottom line is will see in November. Again. I fully expect to keep seeing it come up in every election until the LGBT community gains the legitimacy they seek for their lifestyle choice. That is what it really comes down to, isn’t it? You insist you were born that way, I believe you were not. Of over one hundred close relatives and friends in my little bigoted corner of the world, not one is a member of the LGBT community. I guess we are a bunch of genetic anomalies. You are welcome, btw, for my referring to you and your friends as the LGBT community, instead of what they were called when I was growing up. See, the door to my bigoted little brain is slightly open! lol.
Wow, you showed a shred of common decency by referring to us as the LGBT community as oppsoed to fa**ots, you want a cookie? And honestly, I don’t care about what you, or anyone else, thinks about my relationships as long as I have the same legal rights.
I am sure that you do not care what anyone thinks about your lifestyle choice, least of all your family. Any concern about them having to deal with the stigmatism of having a member of the LGBT community in their family? They can just deal with it, right? It is, after all, all about you, right?
Actually, I have good parents who love and accept me for who I am. You also seem devoted to that whole “choice” thing. I didn’t choose to be gay, but I welcome you to disprove my claim.
“Any concern about them having to deal with the stigmatism of having a member of the LGBT community in their family? They can just deal with it, right? ” – Yes, no matter how horrible it may sound (sarcasm), parents should choose the well being of their children over what the neighbors might think.
…”parents should choose the well being of their children over what the neighbors think”. It doesn’t sound like you gave your parents much choice. I’m gay, just deal with it, right? I don’t believe you were born gay any more than I believe someone is born a thief, or a Republican, or an artist, or a soldier. We are all defined by our choices in life, you included.
Well, I also did not have much of a choice in the matter. But I guess it would have been better for me to kill myself so my parents wouldn’t have had to deal with a gay son…
You characterizing a gay relationship as stigmatizing is not only mean spirited and ugly, but it is hateful. So there you are, by your very own words, a hateful being.
So, you are saying there is no stigmatism attached to being gay? We have always embraced homosexuality? Or did the LGBT community wipe it out completely in one generation? Quite a feat.
There is still a stigma because of bigots like you, although your line of thinking is quickly dying out…
My line of thinking is quickly dying out? According to who? You? The name calling is predictable. It always starts eventually when the counterpoints dry up. Have a nice day
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck, it’s a duck. In your case, if it sounds like a bigot and acts like a bigot, it’s a bigot.
Yes, it is dying out. Every statistic supports this.
What your post clearly implied was that crs5012723333 was shaming his or her family.
Do you not give a second thought that here you are column after column arguing and writing against the gay community. Would not one comment stating your perspective have sufficed. I find this practice a hateful one.
I don’t know, I think it’s kind of silly to say you don’t hate gay people. It doesn’t really matter but it’s not the issue anyway and it doesn’t somehow legitimize your position. Ultimately, it is hateful to use the law to put someone at a disadvantage to you because you disagree with them.
It isn’t a mere matter of disagreement when you use the law against someone you disagree with. For example, recently a married woman was forced to pay hundreds of thousands in estate taxes when her female spouse died. That wouldn’t have happened if she was married to a man. That’s not fair and that doesn’t happen over a mere difference of opinion. The federal court agreed and struck down DOMA as result because there is no reason to treat gay married couples differently. The court decided that moral disapproval isn’t a rational basis for a law, especially when it’s done to target a group of people.
To me, saying this is a just difference of opinion is hiding. This isn’t an issue of preferring chocolate to vanilla or whatever — it’s much bigger and much more important.
Again, I do not hate anyone. To insinuate that I do based on my opinion about one issue is judgmental and shooting from the hip. Whether my opinion is legitimate in anyone’s opinion does nothing to change the fact that is will still come down to a voting issue. We will know where everyone stands in November. Again. We have already voted about this and it is detracting from issues that are far more important to all of us, not just the LGBT community. The LGBT community insists that this is far more important to all Americans than our economic mess. I disagree.
he fact is that for gay people, this is an incredibly important issue. It isn’t a mere difference of opinion if you put a set of people at such a disadvantage like this. It’s just not.
So you can dismiss your gay neighbors, say equal rights isn’t important and maintain that you don’t hate them — but when someone like Edie Windsor pays 350,000 in estate taxes simply because she’s gay and you play a part in that with your vote — that’s not not hateful. You are using the law to put someone you disagree with at a disadvantage. Call it what you want, but it’s not what a decent and fair person would do.
I’m also sorry that you’re incapable of considering more than two issues at once. How troubling for you to have to waste your time checking off a box whether you think your neighbors deserve the same rights that you take for granted. Skip over the question if it’s such a hassle.
Big economic boom predicted from all the pending gay marriages.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I may not agree with the actual opinion , but I do defend the right for them to have it and to express it.
I don’t seem to recall the part in the bible where Jesus said “Hate and fear all those who aren’t like you.” Did I miss a whole chapter in there somewhere? I do remember “Do unto others.” So does this mean we can start a “Ban the Catholic Church” campaign now?
I believe it was Jimbo 2:12 And I dun said to him, “Y’all gays need to stop bein’ so gay all the time.”
See, I was clearly thinking it was Cleetus 2:2 “And ya’ll shud make sure no one has any views dif’rent than yers.
Hey now, don’t take the book of Cleetus out of context. Cleetus 2:3 states “But if they’s do, try convertin’ ‘fore y’all starts shootin'”
I guess it depends on which version you have. I was quoting from the NHV (New Hillbilly Version)
HERETIC! Everyone know that the UJE (Uncle Jimbo Edition) is the TRUE word of Republican Jebus!
No way! The BWC (Back Woods Convention)of 1902 clearly stated that the NHV was the only true version. I quote from the convention document (or Cunventun Dokment as it’s titled) “Ya’ll don’t be spechifyin from no book but the NHV”
Ha! They couldn’t even spell “convenshun” right. Everyone knows that the First Church of Republican Jesus denounced the BWC for taking radical liberties with the “gospuls” of Republican Jesus, Jimbo, Cleetus, BeckyRaeSueLynn, and the other apostles. The BWC didn’t even acknowledge the teachings that every bad thing to ever happen could be traced back to two groups, gays and democrats. That is the fundamental teaching of Republican Jesus, and the BWC didn’t get that right.
Oh, ok. I always wondered why the 1904 convention was called off. That must be why they formed the First United Church of Keeping Them Abnormal Rejects Down.
The funny thing about this exchange is that this is actually how a lot of different splinter religious groups form.
I know, and to think some people actually would take this seriously. I’d love to see people walking around with that acronym on their back. At least we’d be able to identify them easier.
the scholarship here is stunning.
It was Emmit 3:15 that said, “And when Dalton said he would pay money if it kept me in the good graces of the Church, I sayeth unto him, ‘ain’t it peculiar how money seems to do that very thing.'”
Traditionally speaking, Christians should have many wives, concubines and slaves.
Life would sure be a lot easier if bossy people simply minded their own business and stopped trying to foister their religious views (and/or hangups) on others.
The last time I checked America was supposed to be the land of the “free.” Huh. I guess not if you’re not a christian heterosexual.
A homosexual marriage does not threaten my heterosexual marriage. At. All. As far as children are concerned, I know a few homosexual parents who have raised highly successful children. I would rather see a married, commited homosexual couple raise a child than half of the nitwit heterosexual couples I’ve seen not raising theirs at all.
Let’s take this one step further and ban marriage for heterosexual people who cannot produce children.
Methinks David Franks protests to much. He reminds me of Ted Haggard the anti gay crusader who turned out to be as gay as Liberace just sayin’
it seems people who hold certain values are under attack and have lost their right to free speech, actually any one with conservative values. When people attack their values they alway have to be rude and nasty. It’s not a conversation of values it’s attack.
Freedom of speech =/= freedom from criticism. The same Amendment of the Constitution that gives you the right to state your beliefs also allows someone to tell you why you’re wrong.
You argue for free speech and then you argue against it. So you’re supposed to be allowed to say whatever you want and then no one can respond, especially if they disagree with you?
No one is trying to stop you from expressing yourself. Notice how gay people aren’t in the streets trying to take away the right of conservatives to vote? Notice how they’re not trying to ban the practice of Christianity? No, but what you will notice are people trying to deny equal rights to gay people. You’re not the one under attack here. Quit pretending like you’re the victim — it’s ridiculous.
Lucy–I certainly agree that ALL the religious groups that insist on injecting their so-called
“moral” views into civil affairs should be taxed. Marriiage is a civil institution with legal protections that should be available to every couple who wishes to take advanatage of it.
Historically, marriage contracts evolved around property, (X number of goats and camels), and had nothing to do with children, save for some measure of insurance in holding onto those goats and camels.
There is supposed to be separation of church and state here. Marraige is a legal contract. Religious ovelays aren’t even supposed to be part of the requested civil rights.
This is clearly the time that marriage laws should be abolished. If people want to enter a civil union/domestic partnership to take advantage of laws regarding taxes, inheritance, decision making-then they sign the papers. The government should have nothing to do with couples who decide to reside together. Wouldn’t it also be a boon to all of us if the government stopped taxing estates? When childless people pass on, their heirs/the people on the will must pay inheritance taxes unless they are either the parent or the child. By the time most die, the parents are gone and there are no children. Why should the government have its hand out for money upon our death?
Get rid of marriage laws. Anyone wanting the religious ceremony can do so without anyone’s permission.
the catholic church should at least be given credit for ending the use of castrati.
“Boys were castrated between the ages of 7 and 9 years, and underwent a long period of voice training. A small number became international opera stars, of whom the most famous was Farinelli, whose voice ranged over three octaves. By the end of the 18th century, fashions in opera had changed so that the castrati declined except in the Vatican, where the Sistine Chapel continued to employ castrati until 1903. The last of the castrati was Alessandro Moreschi, who died in 1924 and made gramophone recordings that provide the only direct evidence of a castrato’s singing voice.”
.
“The Franks outlined what constitutes marriage as “the loving union of one man and one woman, publicly vowed, oriented toward the procreation and education of children and the good of the spouses.”’
I eagerly await their next seminar when they tell the good people of Maine how the elderly and the infertile, or those who don’t want children, are also not eligible for what they consider “marriage”. I am sure it will be a hoot. Oh, wait, what’s that you say, no such thing in the planning? Color me shocked.
“Should we be allowing the Catholic Church to determine what the state’s definition is?” McTighe asked.
That is a great question. If the answer is even maybe. The church’s should lose their tax exempt status, pronto.
Hell, I think they should lose it anyway.
Next on the same sex marriage parade will be Barney Frank and his significant other who is from Ogonquit. They will be pushing to pass this. Frank did enough to the country with his push on the banking bill. Don’t think he will be well recieved in Northern Maine.
That’s because the laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage were discriminatory, whereas laws prohibiting SSM are not.
ROMNEY / RYAN 2012 !!!
Nick McCrea did a good job reporting on what the Franks said. I wonder if Mark Tighe was there. I am guessing not. I wonder if the many other individuals who commented were there. I am guessing not. If so, their comments would truly reflect what the Franks discussed.
The socio economic facts do support that children do better raised with their biological parents. Our country and many throughout the world support the union of a man and woman because it is their children who will carry on society and culture. Homosexual unions can be loving, they can be enduring, they can be lifelong; however, their physical union NEVER, and I mean NEVER have and NEVER will result in children. That is the difference here. It is nature that discriminates – not human beings.
The elephant is in the living room here. Benefits and special exemptions that are given to heterosexual couples are given to help raise their children. Their children that will be paying for our national debt, our health care, our roads, and our social security. Every child born in this country is the result of one thing – an egg and a sperm. Not two sperms – not two eggs.
Homosexual couples are free to live in a life long- long – loving committed relationship. This however, is not a marriage.
Exhausting. Terribly and dreadfully exhausting! “We” are all in agreement that the “Catholic Church” is probably not the best selection for any political machine agenda. “We” can all agree that “good people” represent a denomination of a Church of “God.”
If the “Pro same sex marriage” political machine would be receptive to “criticism” than “they” would understand the Transference of Intolerance is “their” own “failure” of “their” “Pro same sex marriage” machine. The platform “You” have established within “our” society is of tolerance, diversity and mind-numbing chatter of “Peace, Man.” With that said, the soap-box verbal thrashings of the “anti” machine as: Bible “Thumping,” side-arm packing, Bible Belt, Intolerant, Racist “Hitler’s” needs to be “abolished” if “You” indeed are seeking favorable votes. Sometimes I wonder of “Your” agenda. The reason being is simply one of politics. “You” are pushing potential favorable voters, such as, “Myself” further from the Median of “Your” machine.
For the individual “Hacks” targeting Religion and the Bible and “thinking” they are “groovy” and fostering a para-comedy career with “Their” post. Exhausting. Truly, the trio of jdcraig1, Crs5012723 and FmrMTI is without question Unoriginal & Uninspiring. Jerry Springer has you beat by two-decades.
There is too much $$$$$ representing the respective sides of this issue, and regardless of “We the People…” neither side will ever be fulfilled finacially.
God Bless. Be Well.
Are those supposed to be sarcasm quotes or incorrectly denoted emphasis or what? The whole thing is rendered a bit incomprehensible by them.
What happened to separation of Church and state? I can understand the Church impressing their viewpoint on their members, but this sounds like a full blown _political_ campaign. Not right IMHO.
“Marriage is about children,” Angela Franks said. “Marriage is this relationship in which children are given the optimal environment in which to be raised.”
So a married couple without children is somehow out side the pale? Marriage has other reasons for being. Not to mention that some gay couples raise children , too