Vote Willette
As a college student, I know that many people my age do not take a great interest in politics, especially local elections. I have reason to look forward to voting on Nov. 6, however, because of the great candidate running for re-election to the Maine House in my hometown.
State Rep. Alex Willette just finished his first term as Maine’s youngest legislator, and he has given me hope for my generation with all of the things he has accomplished in just two years.
Willette has emerged as a leader in the House, someone who stands out and gets things done. It is thanks to him that we can all get home a little quicker after he increased the speed limit on I-95 from Old Town to Houlton. As a member of the transportation committee, he was instrumental in ending the automatic annual gas tax increases that would have been driving gas prices even higher than they are now. Willette has even helped tackle the growing drug abuse problem by getting tough on methamphetamine.
These are real accomplishments that help real people, regardless of how old you are or how much money you have. They are the results of true leadership, and that is why we need Willette in Augusta for another term. I encourage everyone in the Mapleton area to vote for
Willette for the State House.
Jason Johnson
Mapleton
State Senate vote
Thank you for the “Your Ballot” tool on your website. It was great to have info about candidates in one place. The answers by the candidates for my state Senate district (Albion, Benton, Clinton, Detroit, Pittsfield, Waterville and Winslow) were particularly helpful.
Democrat Colleen Lachowicz provided thoughtful responses to each of the questions, from health care to jobs to the state budget. Republican Tom Martin did not provide informative responses.
Lachowicz explained her reasoning for her beliefs. Martin just said, “Yes, I support this” or “No, I do not support this.”
I appreciate that Lachowicz is willing to have a conversation with voters. She obviously cared about communicating her views and ideas on the issues. If Martin doesn’t have the time or interest to answer questions, why should we send him to Augusta to represent us? I’ll be voting for Lachowicz for state Senate.
Anneliese Monkman
Clinton
King of the Hill
Several years ago Angus King met with a small group of us in the cultural and humanities profession to talk about how creativity, innovation and critical thinking are essential ingredients to building betters places to live in Maine. He referred specifically to the central role of the creative economy and quality of place in development. What I appreciated was hearing a successful entrepreneur and former governor underscore that many diverse elements in our society contribute to fostering prosperity.
It wasn’t lip service; King gets it. This speaks to his U.S. Senate campaign positions on caring for the environment, stewarding Maine’s sense of place and identity and promoting our inherent assets. King spans boundaries. He has the ability to see the bigger picture, know how to use its differing elements and remain anchored to the practical. That’s why I’ll be voting for him in November.
Sheila Jans
Madawaska
Supporting Jethro Pease
I am writing this letter of endorsement for Republican Jethro Pease, who is running for the Maine House of Representatives. I have known Pease for many years. First as a parent in the school that I work at, then as the fire chief in the Morrill Volunteer Fire Department.
As the past president of the MVFD, I worked closely with Pease. He was always a go-getter, bringing the standards of the fire department up to par with any of the other fire departments around. With his help, we were able to bring our town’s rating up so that we now pay lower home-insurance rates. He was instrumental in getting us newer trucks and making sure that all of our volunteer firemen got the best training and equipment that we could afford. Under his leadership, the MVFD grew. He was always finding ways to help us be the best that we could be.
I believe that Pease is just what this state needs. He will go above and beyond for us, he will give it his all.
Caroline Dodd
Morrill
Proud of King
I have lived in Maine for 58 years. Throughout that time I have been proud to be represented in government by some of the finest public servants in America. Among them were Republicans, Democrats and independents. These women and men have advanced the interests of Maine citizens vigorously, and they have done so with integrity.
Furthermore, the integrity of their campaigns for office was not compromised by lies and distortions about their opponents. In the current election cycle, we are being exposed to flat-out lies and distortions by outside groups who seek to demean the integrity of former Gov. Angus King and to misrepresent his remarkable service as governor.
I beg my fellow citizens of Maine not to allow this outsider poison to infect our political life by smearing King’s life and public service. He is one more of whom we should be proud.
Rev. Dr. Ansley Coe Throckmorton
Bangor
Marriage commitment
Cobscook Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has undertaken prayerful discussion of marriage on a number of occasions. We have held up marriage and same-gender relationships for worship sharing and discussion during business meetings. We have listened to how Spirit speaks to us as Friends, and we are tender to the many paths we have taken to our present affirmations.
Cobscook Friends monthly meeting affirms that couples wishing to be married under our care are welcomed to do so within the faith and practices outlined by New England Yearly Meeting. We affirm that, regardless of gender, all couples desiring before God and our faith community to join in a mutually sustaining relationship should take up the full rights, benefits and obligations that flow from such a commitment.
Our message to the secular community is that society is strengthened when the privileges, rights and responsibilities of marriage are extended to same-gender couples, and that we are all weakened when equality is denied to some while being freely granted to others.
Janet Weston
Trescott Township
Rev. Dr. Ansley Coe Throckmorton, good letter and very good point about these outside PAC ads. I automatically tune them out when ever I hear them.
Rev. Dr. Throckmorton is a thoughtful religious centerist. I agree it is a good letter.
“NO on Question 1” is the best vote to cast.
Mr. Throckmorton: Angus King is an outsider, thoroughbred Democrat who switched to Independent when running for governor of Maine, because he knew he could not win in the D primary.
He left the state with a billion dollar deficit–how is that a good thing?
Outsider? All of the several candidates for U.S. Senat were born outside of Maine. They’re all “from away.”
King will get my vote (although I voted for his Republican opponent when King first ran for governor).
Ah 4….you might want to check but I am 99.99999% sure that the Rev. Dr. Ansley Coe Throckmorton is a woman.
In addition to deciding who should marry whom, 4lifeandfreedom decides what gender we each are. Don’t mess with someone who thinks he is speaking for God. He might smite you for blasphemy.
All you have to do is read the Word, has nothing to do with speaking for God. He speaks very well Himself.
Reading God’s word told me that women should marry their rapists.
You should read the words of the beloved Dali Lama. He lives his words. TeaRadicals say a lot of words, claim to read the word, but actually live lives of intolerance, love of money and little else, distain for the poor, adoration of the rich, GI Joe fantasies about guns and war, and outright selfishness and racism. The extraordinary levels of hypocrisy are simply disgusting.
Ah, but reading the Bible is only the beginning. Read and discuss the mysteries with others. take a cue from our Jewish brothers and sisters who jokingly say, “Whenever you have two Jews discussing an issue you have three opinions”.
And yet so many read the same Word and get such different meanings from it.
The Bible is but two chapters long before it exposes its first inexplicable contradiction: Genesis 1:25-27 states that human beings were created after the animals were created, while Genesis 2:18-19 states that human beings were created before the animals. Read them and consider that Biblical scholars have explained the creation myth in Genesis 1 as a borrowing from the Babylonian creation myth, the Enuma Elish, while Genesis 2 is the traditional Hebrew creation myth. As both myths are the creation of humans, neither are the word of God.
The word “wll” is spelled “well.” Were you defaming God by suggesting that he “speaks very wll Himself”?
Your constant spelling attacks are out of line. This is a public forum and all sorts of people have a valid right to post. You need to learn to separate spelling and opinion. At some point this violates the terms of service and becomes harassment.
How is helping someone with their spelling and grammar harassment?
I cannot recall correcting your spelling and grammar very often. Have I done it at all?
A few times. I thought it unimportant in the scheme of things. This however, seems to be an ongoing thing.
Credit your good spelling to well-paid teachers and a well-funded public school system.
Who do you credit when a person is a poor speller?
Defunding of public education.
MTV. ESPECIALLY when people say “Give this to Amy and I” or “Me and Bill went to Boston.”
Pot kettle.
Miserable person.
hahahahahaha thats how much the dumas knows about the people he criticizes. He is a equal opportunity criticizer. A true Chritain Lash out against your neighbors who you dont even know.
You can be 100% sure. She is a married woman, now retired from teaching. She was the (somewhat conservative) president of Bangor Theological Seminary.
I guess you’re all 4 life and freedom as long as it complies with your point of view.
4 life and freedom*
*Offer only valid if christian and heterosexual
Vote YES on ONE because it is the CONSERVATIVE thing to do, that is, if you are a REAL conservative and not some TeaRadical PHONY wild-eyed extremist delusion-monger. It is all supposed to be about keeping “big government” out of private lives, right? Hm? Right? Yet you TeaRadicals want big government interfering with PRIVATE healthcare decisions of all kinds, PRIVATE personal decisions of all kinds, and even telling people whom they can commit to legally if they so choose. Who a person chooses to love and marry is none, yes NONE of your business. So keep YOUR BIG INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT out of everyone else’s PRIVATE LIVES and decisions if you want, once and for, to stop being a bunch of raging HYPOCRITES. As to Angus King, he has more integrity in one pinky than that slimey, phony, LOSER and LIAR Summers ever thought of having in his entire body. He is LYING vote suppressor who LIED and LIED and LIED again about non-existent voter fraud in order to do ALEC’s corporate toadie bidding and try to take away same-day registration. Well, that didn’t work out very well for the the TeaPublican LIARS now did it?
No on Q 1 is NOT the best vote, absolute worst.
Janet Weston, thank you from the bottom of my heart, thank you. You are truly a person of a loving God and you live your faith. Thank you.
Anneliese Monkman
Do we really need another self absorbed, immature liberal in Augusta such as Colleen Lachowicz
Her past statements about our governor being a drug dealer and “in the sex trade” when living on the streets of Lewiston are inexcusable, and the bragging about playing a game on her company work time just reinforces her complete lack of respect for her employer and the state of Maine.
I truly hope she has no contact with the children which she claims to be helping to protect, and I surely hope that she is not allowed to take her gamer mentality to Augusta.
Your governor is an ignorant arrogant liar and bigmouth and little else.
One would think from reading the BDN that Angus King is the only one running for Senate. I wonder how much his campaign has donated to the BDN? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
If the Quakers were praying to the One and Only True and Living God, they would have received a different answer.
If you were praying to the One and Only True and Living God, then you would have received the answer they received.
AMEN!!
Funny how God says one thing to me, a different thing to you, and still another thing to Heistheone.
The Quakers, as usual, got it right. How come you get God so wrong so often, EJ?
It’s not funny. God’s word is abundantly clear on His stance on homosexuality and marriage. But, then, the Bible is abundantly clear that one must accept Christ as Savior in order to gain admission into Heaven. And the Bible is abundantly clear about what will happen to those that add to or subtract from it, twist it, or teach it incorrectly.
The Quakers got it wrong. But, don’t take my word for it; take God’s Word for it.
The Bible is abundantly clear that a woman must marry her rapist. But I guess we aren’t following that one now, are we?
That sounds like Jewish law that permitted divorce as well. Jesus made it clear that divorce is not permitted. The woman who marries her rapist on account of coercion for the sake of her child does not become one flesh with him. Such unions are not validly entered into.
Jesus says in Matthew 5 18-19 that you must follow the old laws “until heaven and earth pass away”.
Certainly I think I would consider myself foolish to deny what Jesus said. “The law” I believe refers to the law set by God, not the many Jewish practices (such as dietary laws) found in the Old Testament. That is why Jesus said that Moses permitted divorce, but from the “beginning” God did not intend for men and women to divorce. In order to separate God’s law from Jewish practices it is necessary to look to Jesus and his teachings in the New Testament. This is the only thing that makes any sense to me. Jesus fulfills the law in the sense that He Himself humbled Himself to the Father and His will, and brings all who believe in Him to perfection. Of course, “belief” in the biblical sense is not just a mental exercise. It implies wholehearted devotion.
Hmm, a question. Which Christian denomination bans divorce? Please don’t say Roman Catholicism. They have a process where it’s possible.
Yeah. It’s call annulment and it’s a cop-out. They ignore divorce but don’t allow divorced Catholics to remarry in the Church. More victims of religious discrimination of potential Marriage partners.
Funny how they’re satisfied with divorce being legal outside of their church, but for gays it has to be a full on ban. Funny or hypocritical…
As far as I know Roman and Eastern Catholics do not permit divorce. I think you are confusing annulments with divorce. An annulments of a marriage is a formal declaration by the Church that a marriage did not take place when the relationship was blessed by the Church. While an annulment frees most couples to remarry in the Church, there are exception made, such as, when one of the partners is incapable or too immature to carry out the obligations a marriage entails.
So…divorce.
Sort of like pre Roe v. Wade when the wealthy women didn’t have abortions they just had female problems that required a D & C.
Same Church different pew.
Jesus on divorce was the Gospel for the day last Sunday. Not as straightforward as you think.
So why no vote to ban it?
you better start worrying EJ, you twist and lie plenty.
No EJ in not lying. Reject the bible and even God Himself all you want. Know however when doing so you are very possibly condemning yourself for eternity. For your sake I hope not. The few moments of pleasure on earth are not worth the possible loss of eternal happiness.
Who’s rejecting the Bible? We just have a different interpretation than you do.
I agree. But keep in mind that Jesus only established one church and one gospel, certainly not opposing interpretations of it. There is always a human tendency in each of us to interpret his teachings to satisfy our own desires.
Not that simple. Jesus did not establish a “church” but a way of life. The Gospels were written long after his death and resurrection. There were several Gospels, only four of which made it into the current Bible. Subsequent translations and interpretations have proliferated. It’s not a matter of interpretation “for our own desires”, it’s trying tointerprat the multitude of mysteries. The Catholic interpretation of Original Sin stems from St. Augustine and can be considered flawed. Debates on the validity of the Trinity spanned centuries. The days of heresy and “my way or the gallows” are hopefully over.
So which “church” is right?
You realize the Bible in its current form was written and put together 2,000 years after jesus Died?
It’s amazing isn’t it that the Bible has come to us very intact in spite of human efforts to thwart its message and content. These efforts were going on from the beginning, even before being put in written form.
It was never a book, it was put together over the course of time. The intact bible was made over the course of many years.
I don’t know what your intended meaning of “intact” is, but the current contents of the bible have been chosen by a group of men. There were several “gospels” that were deemed not worthy, or convenient, to include in the present collection of texts.
And when will we get the answer to the question asking why people who don’t follow their interpretation of the Bible or of other faiths or of no faith at all MUST follow that interpretation?
Keep in mind, Jesus didn’t organize any church. He disorganized religion and called us out of buildings into the world. I suspect he would not be pleased with this Christian church.
Peter you are rock and upon this rock I will build my church.
it’s up to me to worry about my eternity,not you. I’m a married heterosexual, I don’t reject the Bible, nor God. I reject religion, I think organized religion is the worst thing that has ever happen to the world. Fighting over who god loves, and who is right about who he loves, is wrong he loves us all.
But who is fighting here? As you implied, decisions about faith are yours to make. The God I believe in does not impose himself on anyone. You are free to choose or not to choose for God and His Word. I have no problem with whom God loves because I believe God loves everyone, that is, all sinners.
You’re fighting. You’re using the law against others to compel them to make the same choices you do and live the same way you do. That’s not free will. That’s you being a bully.
If everyone was free to do as they pleased and were granted all of their wishes, society would not function. It would become chaotic, full of conflicts, and bankrupt for lack of resources. In this society we try to make it function through civil discourse and by voting. How about trying to be a little bit more civil and less reactionary when some other person airs a different point of view?
That will happen right around the same time you stop trying to treat your fellow Americans as second class citizens.
Your point of view is harmful though. You’re pushing lies. It’s like when Michelle Bachmann claimed that vaccines cause mental re tardation. Yes, have that opinion all you want, but it’s not based in reality or truth.
And I see you’ve resorted to your tried and true tactic of claiming to be victimized by uncivilized posters or whatever — it’s all a means for you to avoid addressing the real issue though. The real issue is that you’re only looking for information that you want to hear and then you deny and lie about the rest of it that runs contrary to your “point of view”. That’s wrong and it’s not honest.
One of the greatest things that Christ did when he was here was to disorganize religion and show us how to live spiritual lives without being associated with a church, only to have humans organize it again, perhaps making it worse than before Christ disorganized it.
Since you do not love your neighbor has yourself, perhaps you have a lot to worry about.
If two groups that claim to know God and tell me how I should live differ in their beliefs, which one should I follow? How do we know that you and EJ are the true believers and not those of the Westboro Baptist Church?
My suggestion is for you to start with persistent daily prayer, first and foremost. Then accompany that with an earnest quest for the truth. This takes a firm willingness to be really honest with oneself and being like a child in seeking help and guidance from God, not independence or total self-reliance that replaces God. There are good publications available written by both men and women explaining their journey to God. These can be of much help.
When you say The Bible, what you mean is the New Testament. Oh, and are you speaking for God now?
God and I sat down for a coffee. He told me that the Bible’s gone through multiple variations and that the King James version itself has been spindled, folded and mutilated beyond all recognition over the ages. In fact, he even said that some of this stuff is made up on the fly becauce they weren’t sure how to translate the Greek and Hebrew, or that there were parts missing from the text. The earlier version were at least honest enough to include annotations with regard to possible alternate definitions for the words, but then that practice was banned.
He also said that you keep showing yourself to be a sanctiminous blowhard who doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. But don’t take my word for it…
In addition, there’s a good possibility that at least one of the KJV translators was gay. Possibly KJ I himself was too. Ponder that one for a while.
Yes, King James I of England apparently had three or more handsome young male lovers.
Is this the same god that tells people like you who live high atop TEAPUBLICAN DELUSION MOUNTAIN that men and dinosaurs lived together 6000 years ago, and you actually believe it?
Does he also tell you that touching pigskin is very unclean and indeed a sin? Maybe we should stone the NFL? You people and your mythologies. You have no more proof of any “word” than did the ancient Greeks whose religions long predated christianity and who believed in the word of Zeus. Maybe Zeus was right and your “god” doesn’t know what hell he’s talking about. Or maybe it’s a she. Who is to say god isn’t a woman? What foolishness.
I just read about a man of authority, a learned man, a doctor, a Congressman, a man on the Science Committee, a very religious man, who has it all figured out!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html
Nope. You are not abundantly clear on what is said about homosexuality in the Bible. As for adding to the Bible, we all do it every day, especially our Pastors (thank heaven). Once again, you’re that omniscient about what Quakers believe? Sounds like you’re futilely trying to play God.
But, your god is not civil law.
It is voluntary at best.
The Bible is the word of the various authors of the Bible. It is “the Good Book,” not the perfect book. It is not “a paper pope.”
God’s word can often be found in the Bible, and yet the Bible is a human product, written for humans by humans and in the languages of humans. It is not the word of one author, but of many — our religious forebears. It is the story of their search for, and encounter with, God. It is complex, and so it requires a greater use of reason than perhaps any other Western book.
We do not have the original copies of any of the books of the Bible. The most ancient copies we have often differ in many details. A few of the books of the Bible are well-intentioned forgeries.
The biblical authors do not make it clear at all what their’s or God’s “word” might be on homosexuality — a word that never appears in any properly translated Bible.
If the topic is mentioned in the Bible at all, it must be one of the very smallest issues in the Bible. Out of 31,102 verses in the King James translation, only 6 seem to have any bearing on the topic at all, and then only when taken out of context and misunderstood.
It is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments. It is not mentioned by any of the prophets. It’s not mentioned in the Psalms. It is not mentioned in any of the Old Testament wisdom books (such as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Job, Song of Solomon). It’s not mentioned at all in the Four Gospels. It’s not mentioned in Revelation or the non-Pauline epistles. Jesus never talked about it in any words of his recorded in the Bible.
But the Bible in general, and Jesus in particular, shows concern for those who have their rights denied. We are told to welcome the stranger and protect and seek justice for the oppressed person. Jesus welcomed everyone to the banquet table, especially those who were considered outsiders by proper society.
Jesus did not spend his ministry going about condemning sexual practices — but he did criticize people like you, the self-righteous people who judged and condemned those outsiders.
Take the log out of your own eye, EJ, before you try to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.
You miss the core teachings of Scripture. That’s why you don’t understand why the Quakers are right.
There is a lot he made clear that we and you completely ignore.
Homosexuality and same-sex loving relationships are not addressed in the Bible. There are references to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sexual behavior as part of temple rituals, the practice of pederasty and non-consensual acts between humans and non-humans. Please explicitly cite one example of an identifiable same-sex loving relationship being condemned and addressed in the New Testament.
The most used reference to “marriage” is a question posed to Christ specifically asking if a man my divorce his wife for any cause (for whatever reason he wished to) and Christ answered that adultery on part of the wife was the only acceptable cause. No other cause is mentioned: domestic violence, abandonment, adultery on the part of the husband …… does this mean that God does not accept these as causes for a divorce?
Another oft used argument against same-gender marriage is the phrase “one flesh” … and it is used to reference coitus ….. IMO that is a very narrow explanation …. to be “one flesh” is to become one with another in love, respect, honor, to cherish another; to live and work as one rather than two separate entities, to be one in heart, mind and soul. IMO those who use the phrase as solely a reference to a sex act do a serious injustice to what marriage truly is and the commitment that two individual make to one another.
The Bible is pretty clear about eating shellfish, divorce, how to bargain for a wife, instructions on owning slave, how to make burnt sacrifices, etc. How many of those things do you live by??
Interesting …. you are (according to your own identification) a Southern Baptist …. even Southern Baptists are not in total agreement on many issues including extending Civil Marriage to same-sex couples. Civil Marriage is a Civil issue. Our Civil Government regulates Civil Marriage. The Civil Government extends the privilege of witnessing of the Civil Marriage License to clergy of all faiths and denominations. The clergy are given the specific right to follow their doctrine in deciding who they will witness the License for and who they will not. Several faiths and denominations have chosen to witness for same-sex couples …. all laws in states that have extended the Civil Marriage License to same-sex couples continue to uphold the rights of individual churches and clergy to follow their doctrine and their faith. It appears that those faiths and denominations who disagree with extending Civil Marriage Laws to same-sex couples are vehemently opposed to those faiths and denominations who wish to practice their 1st Amendment rights …. usually by attacking them with “they’ve got it wrong” or “they are false prophets” or “they are not “real” followers”. Either you believe in the 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion for all faiths and denominations to practice their faith and follow their individual doctrines and beliefs or you do not fully believe the 1st Amendment applies to all.
You must have a different version of His Word.
Nope, God spoke to me last night and said “crs5012723, I love the gays, I made them special to test all of the other religious people. Unfortunately, they are failing the test. Try to ‘straighten’ them out.”
I’m no religious scholar, yet I can tell you from my years of personal study God loves everyone including gays and all sinners. But does God like sin? You can deny sin and even God Himself but at the risk of losing your soul for eternity. While I can’t speak for you I’m not willing to put my own relationship with God at risk permanently. For your sake I only hope you realize how serious the business of your life is. It’s certainly not worth putting it in jeopardy by trivializing God, that is, “God spoke to me last night and said…”.
No, it’s ok. God told me that being gay isn’t a sin. It actually really ticks him off when people say it is a sin. I mean, he’s an all knowing, all powerful being. He doesn’t care who you have a relationship with as long as it’s consensual. He would much prefer all the so called Christians to actually help people instead of obsessing over other people’s personal lives.
I hope you are not deceiving yourself by denying Holy Scripture and the teachings passed on through apostolic tradition. I’ll tell you one thing, homosexuality is an unnatural act in that it lacks the complementarity between a man and a woman. The urge to have sex with one’s own gender is a disorder, not something one inherits at birth as has been amply shown in a large study involving twins. I know this may be difficult for you to accept but having a disorder does not make you or anyone any less of a person – even in God’s eyes. God in the person of Jesus Christ suffered incomparably for our sake. The crosses (including disorders) we bear in life pale in comparison to His. Only by uniting our sufferings with His own on the cross are we perfected. The reason we are acceptable to God the Father is on account of His son – the perfect offering, victim, and high priest – to expatiate for our sins (denials of God however not necessarily always with the full consent of the will).
Uh oh, I’m going to tell God you said that, he’s not going to be happy with another person failing his test.
But in all seriousness, If your “god” has a problem with my relationship, then I have a problem with your god. I can safely say, screw your god. I dare him to “smite” me.
You come across as angry, especially with God who gave you a cross. Yes, likewise I know what suffering and anger is like even though my own suffering may not be as serious as yours. I’ve dealt with physical sickness and two disabilities nearly all my life. And I’ve had some very nasty things happen to me not to mention the death of very dear ones. Nonetheless, I realize God has a purpose for me, whatever that purpose may be. Because of that I can say I am filled with joy even in my own sufferings. “Letting go and letting God” has helped me tremendously and has taken a big burden off my shoulders. I pray your sufferings too will lessen as you turn to God however distant and unconnected He may feel to you at the moment.
You see, despite your assertions, I’m not suffering. I was suffering when I was struggling with my sexuality and I tried to change. That didn’t work. I only stopped truly suffering when I started my relationship with my boyfriend. So, as I said, screw your god. If he wants to send me to hell, fine. I’d rather go to hell that be in heaven with the stuck up, ignorant “christians”. I know that I would be in MUCH better company in hell…
The anger you appear to display is a form of self-imposed suffering, not a good thing to have and wish for. Anyway, I doubt God is asking you to change your sexual orientation. For that to happen you would need a healing, which might not happen in this earth lifetime. This doesn’t mean however you can’t ask God for guidance concerning your relationship with your boyfriend.
You can’t change your sexual orientation. Enough misinformation out of you.
No, as I said, I’m no longer “suffering”. I’m quite happy. I know you want me to think that I need Jebus to help me be happy, but I only became truly happy when I stopped worrying about what some deity, who may or may not exist, thinks about me, and instead just focused on being a decent person.
What you say leads me to the question of how pursing your urges or proclivities makes you happier. I always though being a master of ones life led to greater happiness as opposed to enslavement to ones basic instincts.
Exactly, I am a master of my own life. I don’t let some “god” dictate my life for me. I know it seems impossible for you to understand, but my relationship with my boyfriend is one based on mutual respect, compassion, and love. That is what makes me happy. The fact that I have found someone who I feel understands me as a person. Someone I feel comfortable talking to and who can always cheer me up. I know you probably think that all gay people are fuled by lustful urges (because obviously NO heterosexuals are EVER driven by “urges”) but you are just wrong and you refuse to accept that you are wrong. What you have been saying leads me to think that you are just jealous of all the LGBT people in happy relationships and you want to do your part to make them a miserable as you. You made your choice to devote your life to your “morality”, but just because you subconsciously regret that decision doesn’t mean you get to make everyone else’s lives as miserable as yours.
The same reason straight people want to get married. How disgusting for you to suggest that for one it’s this magical beautiful thing and for others it’s an enslavement. You may not want to admit it, but that’s bigotry. Plain and simple.
You make it sound as though gay and lesbian couples are nothing more than sexual animals ….. their only urge they have is to engage in sexual acts with someone of the same gender …. we are human beings who wish to love and be loved, share their lives with someone they love, honor and cherish ….. just like opposite gender couples. You are only proving that you believe we are not fully human and incapable of having fully human emotions, relationships and dreams like every other human.
No one is suggesting you must be forced to drop your same-sex lover. What you fail to see is that state’s interest in marriage is primarily about children, the offshoot of a man and a woman in a love relationship. By changing the definition of marriage the main concern for the state in marriage shifts to adult relationships, from a child-centered institution to an adult-centered institution.
I do not have a same-sex lover. My wife and I practiced celibacy by choice. I woke at 3:24 one morning last year lying next to her deceased body…… so whawell I am a widow. Like it or not we were married, spouses, she was my wife and I was hers ….. legally recognized where we resided, but not in the state or the country I was born, raised and am a citizen of.
My mom remarried a few days ago after being a widow for 41 years….. the Civil Marriage License they had witnessed and sent to the State of Maine is proof of their loving commitment to each other …. they will not be having children, “the offshoot of a man and woman in a love relationship” ….. the state does not care nor does the state care if they are in a “love relationship”.
The state and federal government(s) so-called primary interest (children according to you and others) ends when said children reach the age of majority ….. then it shifts to the adults entirely. For opposite sex couples that for whatever reason do not have children, the interest is fully for the couple from day 1.
Your assumption is that marriage cannot be about the interests of children since not all married couples have children. Here is why this does not make any sense:
1) This view of yours looks at marriage from the adult point of view. It reveals just how deeply same sex marriage inverts the purpose of marriage by making marriage an adult centered institution as opposed to a child-center institution.
2) If you look at marriage from a child’s perspective you can see that not every marriage produces children, but that every child has natural parents.
3) Every child is entitled to a relationship with both parents. The Maine court system finally came to this realization of late when it decided to start awarding fathers in divorce cases equal or near equal status with mothers in custody cases. In contrast, not long ago a father was relegated to mere visitation rights, unless the mother ceded her rights to the children or was proven outright unfit.
4) No child can possibly hope to protect his entitlement on their own behalf.
5) For the aforementioned reason adult society must protect the child’s right to affiliation with both natural parents.
6) Adult society must protect the child’s right to affiliation through prevention of harm, not through restitution after the fact.
7) The marriage between one man and one woman is the institution used to pro-actively protect the rights of all children to affiliation to their parents.
8) Without marriage reserved for opposite sex couples, there is no institution specifically protecting the rights of children to affiliation to their parents.
9) Adopted and foster children tell us they long for a relationship with their biological parents.
10) To assist children in fulfilling their longing, the law in most states helps adopted children find their birth parents.
11) Conceiving a child with a life plan denying them of their relationship with either biological parent is unjust and arguably cruel.
Now you might be tempted to say children only need two adults who love each other and that love is more important than biology.
1) If love between two adults were the only important factor, we would expect stepparents to be interchangeable with biological parents. But this does not appear to be the case.
2) Children in stepparent households, on average, have more emotional problems and lower school achievement than children with their married parents.
3) Needed discipline can be complicated in stepparent households compared with households with married biological parents. Some biological parents even prevent their stepparent spouses from discipline, saying, “they’re my kids, not yours”.
4) Some children in stepparent households become experts at pitting the parents against each other, thus complicating and even preventing discipline.
5 Loyalties in stepparent households can be complicated. The biological parent can feel torn between commitment to the child and commitment to the spouse. Intact biological families on the other hand are more likely to feel their love for the child is also an act of love for the child’s other parent.
6) Research has shown stepfathers spend less time with their spouse’s children than biological fathers do. Remarried mothers, on average, spend less time with their own children. Also, the child and the stepparent become competitors for the attention of the biological parent.
7) Same sex parenting means that one of the adults will not no biological link to the child, and may be more like a stepparent than a biological parent. Therefore we can assume adults’ love for each other will resolve will resolve the complications inherent in stepparent families.
I could explain too why men and women are not interchangeable and how redefining marriage marginalizes fathers especially. But it’s getting late and these explanations would take as much space as I have already used in this response. For the sake giving credit where credit is due, please note much of this discussion comes right from a pamphlet written by Jennifer Robach Morse entitled “77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage.” If you can secure this document I would suggest you read it thoroughly.
I realize that you are coming at this issue from a Catholic perspective and that you hold your belief system very close…. your “source” (The Ruth Institute) for this laundry list is far from unbiased and provides Zero citations/references for its points.
Ms. Morse does hold a doctorate – it is in economics, not in law, psychology, sociology or family issues. I read the pdf version and looked further.
Please look up “77 Non-Religious Reason to Support Man/Woman Marriage -Examined” and read thoroughly the comments to each point by the author.
The biggest misnomer represented by you and the Ruth Institute, IMO is that same-sex marriage will prevent man/woman marriage in some way, innuendo that it will somehow prevent children from being adopted, fostered or raised by opposite sex couples – including children from intact nuclear families and that any child not raised by at least one biological parent is “less than” those who do. Do you not see how this denigrates non-biological adoptive parents and their children? (I have seen and read comments from adoptive parents on the NOM site and other sites where many of these points have been posted.)
Again, Marriage for those whose children have reached the age of majority, those who chose not to raise children, those who marry that are beyond child-bearing years are provided with hundreds of rights, benefits etc through the state and federal government(s). The vast majority of those are related to “spouse” with nothing directly or indirectly related to offspring. Neither the State nor the Federal Government(s) restrict couples without children from rights, benefits, protections, etc ….. until that happens, there is an interest in adult-centered marriage relationships.
Citations were not cited because they would have been far too numerous to include in a small pamphlet for the general public to absorb. Besides there are a lot more reasons not mentioned in this pamphlet for not changing the definition of marriage. I’ll say this much, the citations in the pamphlet are very accurate and are not really new. As I’ve emphasized over and over in this forum, society’s (and thus the state’s) interest in marriage should remain primarily focused on the offspring of married OS couples and in promoting their relationships to them.
One more thing, I am not in anyway demeaning single or adoptive parents by asserting households consisting of these are generally not as suitable as households consisting of their biological parents. Indeed there are parents from every angle who are not suitable to raise children. The fact we have people willing to act as alternatives to biological parents is a good thing and is commendable. After all, we should always try to provide children with the best suitable household arrangement.
“Citations were not cited because they would have been far too numerous to include in a small pamphlet for the general public to absorb. ” – So, in other words, you have nothing and just want us to “believe” you. Take it on faith, if you will. That doesn’t cut it.
The pamphlet, like most pamphlets, is only intended to give the public basic information about a very complicated subject that can only be given full treatment through serious study. Oh, you thought you had me, didn’t you! Keep trying. Just know I am not interested in this game of “gotcha” you are trying to play against me. I know you dislike me intensely, but that won’t stop me from commenting.
All I’m asking is for you to post a link to this “pamphlet”. Back up your claims. But apparantly my “gotcha” question of “what source are you using” is too much for you to handle. And yes, I do dislike anyone who wants to treat me like a second class citizen and thinks their religious dogma is more important than the rights of their fellow citizens.
If the primary interest of the state is the offspring produced in a marriage and promoting those procreative relationships then I would suggest that the state ban divorce by couples with minor children, the state not allow children to be raised by single parents (either compel a couple to marry or remove those children to a home that ensures they have a male/female married couple) otherwise they are not primarily interested in what is best environment for them (according to you).
whawell at every turn here you convey the opinion that gays and lesbians are less than their straight peers, that gays and lesbians were not intended to be fully human by God’s plan for them and that you know us better than we know ourselves. You are a plethora of regurgitated misleading and false information bent on calling us liars because you know better.
Good luck to you …..
Banning divorce is not in the best interest of children, especially in abuse situations or situations where either one or both parents refuse to carry on their relationship to each other. Come on, you know better!
I could ask the same of your obsession with this topic.
Healing began for me when I accepted who I am ….. rather than living the lie that was expected (heterosexual attraction and behavior). When you realize that your have been filled with self-deception, living a life that goes against your nature and accept yourself the way in which God made you …. a great Peace comes over you. I realize you do not believe those of us who tell you that we are happier and healthier today than we were in the past and have found peace and understanding in our lives however, that is your opinion not our reality. There are many gays and lesbians who ask God’s guidance …. you are deceived in your belief that were are broken, suffering and in need of healing ….. it is under God’s guidance that we have accepted ourselves and are able to fully love ourselves and another.
You don’t have to deny you have a same-sex attraction when it is present. Many people including some very dear friends of mine lead celibate lives. What you do with your life is your business just as long as you don’t impose on others as the passage of SSM would do by denying some children of the moral and ethical right to a mom and an dad and by forcing others through the educational system to accept values contrary to their own or their parents.
Yep, screw all those children in foster care who would love nothing more than a parent who loves them. Glad to know you put your “morals” above the rights of a child to have a loving family.
Yes, children in foster care would love nothing more than parents who would love and care for them. But just any parents? Children should always be placed with a mom and dad, to say the least, on account of the many advantages such an arrangement has over all the others except in a few cases where for familial reasons the children might be better off with, say, a grandmother. For that reason I don’t favor adoption by gays. This practice was imposed on Mainers by a liberal court. Likewise it was forced on Mass. residents who as a result lost all their excellent Catholic sponsored adoption agencies. This has left many children in foster homes that otherwise would have been adopted.
“Children should always be placed with a mom and dad, to say the least, on account of the many advantages such an arrangement has over all the others” – I’m sure you have plenty of unbiased sources to back up that claim. I’ll wait…
But overall, that post just goes to show you care more about your strict dogma, and forcing everyone else to follow that dogma, than you do about children.
No, I care more about the best interests of children than some people who want to invert the purpose of marriage for their own self-interest.
You care sooo much about the children you would deny them loving, stable homes. How “christian” of you.
Because we cannot be loving parents …… we are incapable of meeting the emotional or physical needs of children who were neglected or thrown away by those who could not or would not …… because we are “broken” in your opinion. Catholic Charities was not forced out of the adoption services they provided. Rather than comply with non-discrimination laws (even though some branches had been placing kids with gay and lesbian individuals as well as couples) as was part of their contract, they CHOSE to discontinue ALL adoption services. Now tell me whawell …… in the end, who was hurt by their CHOICE?
How many children, especially those with special needs, older kids and siblings were systematically left in the system till they age out because Catholic Charities it was better that they do so than be adopted by two moms or two dads who would have chosen to provide them with a loving home?
It seems that the church doesn’t think they should follow the law, and when they were called out on it, they had a hissy fit and said, once again, their dogma was more important than the children.
No, the Church in Mass. had no option unless, that is, you consider violating its own teachings “an option”.
They were receiving taxpayer $$$$ ….. there is a non-discrimination law ….. they chose to close ALL services. They could have continued and could still continue if they chose to run it privately without taxpayer monies.
On the other hand …. many children in that very same educational system are being raised by same-sex parents, children who are being raised by single parents, divorced or never married parents and children who who are being raised by those who have no biological connection to them. Marriage is not taught in the public schools ….. families are discussed, by that token, I am certain that there are those who have issues with all of the above. Why is it that only same-sex headed families are the ones that those who speak out address? Are there complaints about the lessons involving other family arrangements that are given the light of day in local school board meetings? Are there public education settings that ban the teaching of all families other than the “traditional, nuclear family”? I would dare say that given 95% of the population is heterosexual and are the “producers” of children, a far greater cause for children not being raised by their mother and father rests on their shoulders, not the small % of gay and lesbian couples who are having, adopting, fostering or raising them.
Sorry whawell, in this forum on BDN (as well as in my daily life) I have been labeled as “evil”, “under the direct influence of the devil”, “sick”, “broken”, “perverted”, a “danger” to children etc ……for identifying as and accepting of my sexual orientation and told that (not behavior they disapprove of) alone has put me on the one-way road to hell …… unless I repent and deny who I am.
“Why is it that only same-sex headed families are the ones that those who speak out address?” – Because the people speaking out against that are hypocrites.
But they are blinded to it ….. because their current need to denigrate and ostracize is focused on us….. not those “like” them (those with a heterosexual orientation) …. I do not believe they are at all interested in the welfare of children, to have a loving family, but to pass off the irresponsibility of “their own” as being a threat from us.
Maybe someday ……. :)
Just a short comment: you weren’t born gay any more than alcoholics aren’t born alcoholic. Accepting your status or orientation is very different than acting on it. That said, you are free to practice what you please but you are not free to impose your belief as gay activists are trying to do by changing the definition of marriage. They see “marriage” as a stepping stone to forcing broad social acceptance.
Oh, incidentally, I’ve been called all those names you mentioned in this forum. I simply tell myself, “sticks and stones”. It’s too bad people from both sides of the issue resort to this sort of misbehavior.
“you weren’t born gay” – Unless you know something that the rest of the world doesn’t know, stop lying. No one knows what causes homosexuality, and don’t try to bring up that one twin study, I already told you why that doesn’t “prove” sexual orientation is a choice.
“That said, you are free to practice what you please but you are not free to impose your belief as gay activists are trying to do by changing the definition of marriage. ” – I’m not imposing anything. You wouldn’t be invited to my wedding anyway. You may be convinced that you are some sort of “victim” in this situation, but you’re not. Get over yourself. You are not the one losing any rights. You are not the one being treated like a second class citizen. I have a right to civil marriage and your superstitions don’t change that.
Sorry whawell ……. you do not know my heart, my mind, my life experience, my conscience or my relationship with God …… I am who I am and I am at peace after years of living in denial of my nature ….I am thankful for the journey.
Unfortunately you have proven you have no regard for other’s self-knowledge – you believe you know more about me in a few posts than I know about my own self and being in 50+ years….. and others here also ….. IMO you have a very high opinion of your “expertise” in human sexuality, sociology, psychology, biology, genetics and at times your immense “omnipotence” and truthfully am finding you personally offensive. You certainly have the right to speak/write your opinion but please stop pretending you are an expert on the lives, emotions, intentions … etc of individuals you have never met, you know not of what you speak.
Tell us again where you got your PhD in Psychology and where your peer-reviewed studies have been published…
I don’t want my children to have to accept institutionalized bigotry. Let people make their own choices. Don’t use lies to oppress others with the law. That’s un-American.
No one is “imposing” same-sex marriage on you. Don’t like it, don’t go to gay weddings.
And divorce and choice deny children the “moral and ethical right to a mom and a dad”…
Hypocrite.
There are families RIGHT NOW that are made up of same-sex parents. Blocking this law won’t change that.
Aren’t there congenital disorders?
Hopefully he loves those that engage in hypocrisy. Passing laws to punish and target a specific group of “sinners”, but not using the law in a similar way against others? Where are your standards? Seems ike you need to being worrying about your own business before advising others how to live/have relationships with God.
He is the potter, we are the clay. Who are we to question God’s wisdom? Haven’t you read the scriptural passage in Isaiah 55: 8-9 where God compares man’s wisdom with his?
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so
are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
No one is being specifically targeted and punished as you asserted, for I doubt God created people with homosexual tendencies. Are you not aware of the study involving a large sampling of twins that refutes the long-held view gays “are born that way”? But even if you reject this study and accept the view that same-sex attraction is inherited, so are many illnesses inherited. These inherited disorders however are all very temporary when compared to eternity, and are obviously part of the Divine plan for salvation.
A single study cannot “refute” anything.
But I’m glad to know that the love I feel for my boyfriend is just a “disorder” to you and your “god”.
Whawell picks and chooses the information he/she likes and ignores the rest, lies about the rest, etc. Don’t expect an honest or consistent argument from him/her.
Oh, I don’t. It’s just nice knowing that whawell’s arguments are the best arguments the anti-equality side has.
It doesn’t matter how “antiquate” an argument is just as long as it is meritorious and still valid.
And your are neither meritorious or valid.
If we’re being nice, you’re like those that argued the world is flat. If we’re not being nice, you’re like those who cited God and argued against interracial relationships.
But yours isn’t. It’s already lost in court more than once.
Meritorious is not a word that describes anything that you have said.
You’re partially right, a single study does not necessarily refute a supposition. But the study in question has a very large sampling with a very small margin of error, and has been subjected to much peer review. But what evidence do you have indicating homosexuality is an inherited trait? As one French philosopher put it: La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure. (translation: the stronger argument always prevails in the long run).
You still haven’t actually posted the link to the study. Also, if you are talking about what I think you are talking about, then your assertion is also incorrect. A twin study is, at most, an indicatior that sexual orientation is not related to genetics. That does NOT mean that a biological cause is not possible. Your original assertion is misleading at best, but based on past posts, I’m thinking that was your intent. What was that one comandment, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness”…
As for studies supporting the idea of sexual orientation being biological, I’m glad you asked.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120806084533.htm
This article is about a study where pupil dilation was a predictor of sexual orientation. So, unless you want to tell me that those people “chose” to dilate their pupils, then it seems that attraction is an innate, biological characteristc.
I’ve posted it on more than several occasions. Maybe you just weren’t paying attention. As to your reference, the study merely confirms sexual orientation can be determined without explicitly asking for it. Of course if you present erotic photos of a nude woman, a heterosexual man will respond. Likewise, if you present erotic photos of a nude male, the homosexual male will respond. That by any means this does not support the idea of orientation as arising from biology.
By your logic, the homosexual male CHOOSES to respond to the photo of the nude man. That’s not true at all.And, just so you know, it’s not just ANY nude man. One of Thomas Roberts of MSNBC might do the trick, but not one of Chris Farley.
Psh, Anderson Cooper is where it’s at. That silver fox…
No, I am not saying the homosexual male chooses to respond to the photo of a nude male. My point is that those responses from both male and female heteros and homos to nude photos does not prove in any way that sexual orientation is inherited. Much like the sense of taste for various foods, it is acquired through time and is often subject to change. Furthermore, much like the sense of taste, it can be determined without asking subjects to identify their preferences.
The purpose of the study concerning responses to nude photos was not to prove a genetic basis for sexual orientation. Rather it was conducted to determine if sexual orientation can be determined without asking specifically each and every subject in future statistical studies to identify their orientation. As you probably know, there have been concerns in some studies conducted in the past about subjects not being fully candid.
No it does not prove a specific “inherited” cause ….. it shows physiological responses, physical, biological and chemical responses. These responses are not learned, they are inherent. Can they be manipulated by aversion therapies, chemical inhibitors, shock treatments, castration or genital mutilation, “reparative” therapies or can we somehow just switch them off (ie through prayer)? Many of these “treatments” have been tried and they have failed and damaged far too many. Interestingly I do not believe any of these “experiments” have been tried on those with a heterosexual orientation …. perhaps because it would have caused damage and been deemed unsound practice ….
I’ve never brought up the issue of therapies to change orientation because that is a totally different subject than SSM. Interestingly you mentioned the worse forms of therapy for that purpose without mentioning that these therapies have been used as well to ameliorate many other disorders that are emotional, psychological, and mental in nature. What’s the point? You didn’t even mention lobotomy that has been used to treat various mental illnesses. Of course today no therapist in his right mind would use these forms of therapy to treat any patient.
Your comment, “These responses are not learned, they are inherent” is somewhat misleading because we all respond differently to various cues. It is more accurate to say how we respond is often learned behavior. We know for instance we all have a different or unique sense of taste. I like fiddleheads like many Mainers do but very few Floridians do only because they have never acquired this sense through prolong and frequent exposure, not because they are lacking fiddlehead genes. Therefore one cannot assume gay orientation is genetically linked because of how they react to nude photos.
You are continuing to argue the “gay gene” has not been found etc. You are missing that I do not believe there is a “gene” ….. I believe there are many biological factors and variations within a the very complex make-up of human beings. I do also believe that their are various combinations of genetic variances that have not yet been looked at.
I was not exposed to nude pictures of either males or females while growing up and do not seek those images out now ….. if I were to be exposed to images of male and female faces or clothed images of males and females … I assure you that my physiological responses would be different for a male than a female. I was married to a man for several years…. I bore 3 children … in many ways you remind me of my ex husband ….. a tendency to be condescending, offer vast amounts of information on a variety of subjects without regard to whether they were accurate or thorough, not being open to accepting someone’s reality as truth, the need to be right (in his own mind) etc. My wife was very unlike my ex husband but as I said earlier I was much healthier at that time.
Yes I did mention some very arcane treatments that did nothing more than cause harm to the subjects of those treatments and I also mentioned reparative therapy and prayer. I believe those can also be very harmful to many … there are false expectations for some who want nothing more than to be fully functioning human beings and assume that they can “cure” themselves of their innate attraction rather than accepting themselves as God intended them to be …. fully functioning human beings who can find a loving same-sex relationship.
I truly am sorry that you are blinded to the personal experiences and sincere sharing of those experiences by gay and lesbian human beings …. perhaps someday God will open your heart and mind to that. In the mean time …. thanks for your input and your desire to share your opinion.
I disagree with many of your assumptions, so let me say, we will not likely arrive at a consensus on the gay marriage issue. You can judge me all you want but I won’t do the same to you because I realize people can and do have genuine disagreements, even among close friends. I also recognize there is such a thing a “false” or wrongly placed sympathy. In my case I am not willing to see the definition of marriage changed to please others on account of the implications for children among other things. It’s a case of the disadvantages of gay marriage far outweighing the advantages of having it in my opinion.
I’m sorry you feel offended to the point of becoming personal on this issue, but I along many others did not bring up the issue of gay marriage. I would rather not feel compelled to defend the value of retaining the current definition of marriage. Yet I fully understand the need for genuine debate on policy issues, even sticky ones like SSM. What you are essentially asking me to do is to stop debating or making my views known, which obviously I cannot and will not do lest I give up my right to speak up when moved to do so.
No actually , what lyndme is actually asking you to do is to recognize that, as an American citizen, she gets all the rights of an American citizen, regardless of sexual orientation. You cannot even do that.
‘It’s a case of the disadvantages of gay marriage far outweighing the advantages of having it in my opinion.” – What disadvantages? The only things you have listed have been debunked. You refuse to admit you are wrong. This is not the difficult issue you make it out to be. The issue is: Do you support equal treatment for ALL Americans or don’t you? It seems clear from your posts that you do not support freedom and equality for all.
Thank you crs5012723 …… I rambled on before I read your comment. You stated things succinctly. I am frustrated with trying to convey these points.
You’re welcome, us queer folk gotta stick together afterall.
If you weren’t male and in a loving relationship …. I’d ask you to marry me… ;-)
Alas, your lady bits make our love impossible. :-D
whatwell … I in no way am asking or suggesting that you not state your opinions in this or any forum, hence my last statement thanking you for your input and desire to share your opinion.
That said you make many broad sweeping assumptions in your comments that I as a lesbian wholeheartedly disagree with … I am no more an expert on individuals who are gay or lesbian
than you are. I offer my experience and my reality which is similar to many other gay and lesbian human beings that I know. We are all unique and do not share the same life experiences. As a citizen of the State of Maine and a citizen of the USA, I will tell you that my marriage was not recognized nor is my status as a widow recognized …. the loving relationship that we shared for over 10 years based on love, honor, respect, trust, co-mingling of finances and daily chores etc, which other US citizens who are legally recognized, through a Civil Marriage License, share never existed according to the government that is supposed to represent me.
You do not address the children that are being raised by same-sex couples here in Maine. You ignore the plain and simple fact that they exist and deserve the same protections as children being raised in other family situations. If the state truly has an interest in children being raised in stable committed relationships then they would hold those same interests for all children – and they showed they did in part by passing the law extending Civil Marriage in 2009. Do you forget that this law was repealed because it was brought before the voters by groups opposed? It was not brought up for public vote by gay and lesbian couples but by for the most part faith-based and affiliated groups who as time goes on have made it clear that they are not just opposing Civil Marriage or the word Marriage but any legal recognition of same-sex couples as well as repeal of anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment etc. Certainly you did not have an issue with repealing the extension or those involved in the repeal but you take issue with those of us who want equal access petitioning for it. We are tired of being treated by the government that is supposed to be for all of us; to represent all of us, as less than and being denied the right/privilege of Civil Marriage. For God’s sake whawell, incarcerated individuals are allowed to enter into Marriage …. but we, as law-abiding citizens are not. We are all sinners, yet gay and lesbian couples are denied a Civil Marriage License and those who commit serious criminal acts are not. Gluttony is a sin but those who are gluttonous are not denied, adultery is a sin yet adulterers are not denied, killing is sin yet killers are not denied. The reason? The genitalia is “complimentary” and therefore they have the right to marry. By the way, the Civil Marriage License does not have any reference to love, so that does not matter either. What is the state’s interest in sanctioning the marriage of someone serving a life sentence with no parole or someone on death row? If conjugal visits are allowed and a pregnancy ensues ….. does the state release the prisoner so the child will have the benefit of being raised by it’s biological parents?
Would it be easier for gays and lesbians if they were not? Well of course it would, they would be accepted fully by society, they would not be shunned, they would not be treated as the “other”. Been there, done that. What you failed to even respond to was the fact that living a life in denial, shame and self-loathing is harmful and that self-acceptance at being at peace with oneself is healthier physically, emotionally and spiritually. If you really want to communicate with other in an honest manner, why do you ignore or dismiss these things?
You are not open to honest communication when you do this.
I am not asking for you “sympathy” or your acceptance of my identity, but this issue is personal, it affects me personally and it affects upcominggenerations of gay and lesbian human beings; citizens of the USA.
From what you told me you were married to a man at one time. The relationship might have been abusive but after it ended you went on to link yourself to a woman instead. What can I tell you? If you feel so dishonored why did you enter into a lesbian relationship in the first place?
Look, very few gays in countries where SSM has been permitted for several years have actually married. And even among those who got married, the average marriage lasted no more than a few months. Is this good for children?
As far as children of gays goes where did they come from? Obviously at least one of the biological parents is missing. They came about as a result of divorce and at least one parent linking up to a same -sex partner. Or they came about through adoption (which was never voted on in Maine), or through artificial means. Take your pick, but they all resulted from a choice one of their biological parents made. Society did not make that choice. They did, that is, without the children’s consent to boot. Don’t forget, we have an obligation to take reasonable measures to discourage this from happening. Endorsing same-sex couples through the institution of marriage can only make matters worse. For starts, I would also outlaw in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination – except for married couples – that are dangerous for the donors and lethal to human beings resulting from in vitro fertilization.
By your logic, the homosexual male CHOOSES to respond to the photo of the nude man. That’s not true at all.
And, just so you know, it’s not just ANY nude man. One of Thomas Roberts of MSNBC might do the trick, but not one of Chris Farley.
Stop lying. It’s really disgusting what you do. That study was refuted because it didn’t compare gay parents to straight parents. It compared straight parents to single parents and then asked if the single parents ever engaged in homosexuality. That’s not a sound study, so stop lying about it.
And why does it matter whether gays were born that way? I’ve asked you the question and you always ignore it. Instead you just push the same lies and misinformation. Answer the question. Why is it valid that religion is protected (you’re taught your religion), but not gays? Why do gays have to prove they were born that way to satisfy you?
I don’t think whawell is talking about the study you think he is talking about. He is trying to say that one twin study on sexual orientation somehow “proves” that sexual orientation is a choice. You are thinking about the Regnerus study about same sex parents which in fact was torn to shreds, with one auditor reffering to is a “bullsh*t” that should have never been published. Whawell is being dishonest, but not for the reasons you think.
That’s the one Whawell linked to the other day and then he/she lied about it and said that it was a “gay liberal activist” that discredited it.
This is what Whawell does. Makes broad and untrue statements, says some very hateful things in veiled language (like referring to being gay as an enslavement) — then when you call him/her out on it, he/she says “you sound really angry, you need to take a breather” (or something to the affect). Anything to avoid being accountable for the lies and misinformation.
Those “gay liberal activists” who make all these “rules” that I need to follow. I don’t need a good methodology or sample size as long as I got Jebus!]
Also, I like how it seems that conservatives have no problem with the fact that a majority of the peer reviews of the study were actually friends of the person who conducted the study AND had documented instances of anti-gay bias. But that doesn’t matter, because lying is o.k. when done to hurt us queers.
Has heterosexual orientation ever been proven by science? If humans were all born (100%) with the intent to be heterosexual ….. where is the scientific “proof”. Seems that it would be quite easy to prove given 95% of the human population is heterosexual … what a huge sample scientists are missing out on.
If one chooses to be attracted to someone of the same gender, doesn’t that mean that that option was already part of that person? Does someone just choose to go wholly against one’s nature and continue that for decades?
Unfortunately Joe gay and lesbian individuals have throughout history chosen to to live their lives pretending to be heterosexual for various reasons; because society expected it, family expected it, refusing to self-accept and denial, buying into shame, guilt and self-hatred. We now live in a time when we refuse to live our lives based on a huge lie and that makes many uncomfortable so they take on the role of attempting to put us back where they believe we belong, in a world of lies, deception and self-hated in whatever way they can.
Complete rubbish.
As the CHOICE of religion is given “special rights” under the Civil Rights Acts of ’64 and ’68, there is no need to prove that being gay is an inherited trait.
You lose on this one too. The choice argument is made moot by the protection of the choice of religion.
Have you ever read the Prop 8 transcript that destroys all of your arguments in THREE federal court rooms?
You should.
Ditto.
Yes, you are specifically targeting gay people. They want equal rights, they want to marry the one they love and you’re using the law against them, to hinder them.
Quit being dishonest and changing the subject. It’s irrelevant whether they are born that way or not. It is not something people choose and it is not something people can change. Period. And either way, it doesn’t matter. We protect your choice to be religious, we don’t mandate that you prove you were born religious in order to allow you equal rights.
You can think gays are ill all you want, but that doesn’t make it suddenly okay that you target them with the law. That you use the law against them because you disagree with them. It doesn’t make what you’re doing suddenly not hypocritical. You’re against divorce I assume, why no legislative ban? That proves that you ARE in fact targeting gays. You can’t get around that, no matter the amount of dishonesty you push.
Marriage is a moral, ethical, and legal right for a man and a woman who want to commit to each other in a loving bond for the rest of their lives. The state is under no obligation to try to enhance other types of relationships that are not in society’s best interest. With that, gays are not being denied a right anymore than financially self-supporting people who are being denied welfare.
Divorce is often the only avenue in abusive situations. Yes, I am not against divorce outright. So what does that prove?
That you are not a “true” Catholic if you are not against divorce.
Marriage is a moral, ethical, and legal right for a two people who want to commit to each other in a loving bond for the rest of their lives.
FTFY
‘The state is under no obligation to try to enhance other types of relationships that are not in society’s best interest. ” – No, but the state is required to treat everyone equally under the law. That includes giving same sex couples the same right to marriage.
If what you say is true, then the state is obligated to assist everyone financially regardless of need.
State assistance has not been ruled a right by the Supreme Court, try again.
You haven’t proven it is in the best interest. You’ve pushed lies and biases that have never held up in court.
And yes, gays are being denied the right to marry. Period.
And with your divorce comments, you admit to your hypocrisy. You know darn well that divorce isn’t only used to those exiting abusive relationships. Don’t try and turn that around and make it seem as though your hypocritical stance on divorce is somehow a moral one. Both homosexuality and divorce are wrong in the eyes of the source your cite most, the Bible. Yet, you only pursue legal avenues to punish gay people and not straight people. So what does that prove? It proves you’re inconsistent and hypocritical.
Are you or have you ever been denied the “privilege” of entering into Civil Marriage to a consenting, non blood related (other than 1st cousin, which is allowed in Maine with proof of genetic counseling), of sound mind, unmarried and above the age of majority Adult?
“Society’s best interest” would be monogamous, legal and committed life-long relationships, would it not? You are just not willing to extend this to individuals the same gender because …. ?? Got any new reasons other than what you have already offered? Do you have “studies” or concrete evidence that proves granting Civil Marriage to same-sex couples is not in the best interest of society … actual proof that it harms society as a whole …. not scripture or slippery slope arguments?
Edited to add: Do you disagree with Christ that adultery is “cause” for a divorce? Do you not agree with pastors who counsel victims of abuse to forgive their abuser and continue their marital relationship?
Maybe it’s because this new law would make the US more like a big-government Socialist country, like what Erick Bennett suggested last month???
Marriage is a civil contract.
Nothing more… nothing less.
One that already accepts barren or voluntarily childless couples. Your hang up will insure your loss.
Your angst is so sweet.
Nothing that you have said on this thread proves anything except that you continue your hateful, sanctimonious anti-gay diatribe.
Yes. We must stay on track. This is a law that concerns the legal document issued by the state that is civil marriage.
well he made of 1500 animals that do
He is the potter and I am the clay ….. He molds us all uniquely, as He wishes us to be. I am truly sorry that you believe He did not create some of us with an orientation that is not heterosexual, just as He created some left handed, some with green eyes, some with learning differences, some who are shorter than the average, etc. Perhaps someday you will see the wonderful variety of His creations and accept that He was purposeful in his designs and celebrate the differences.
Some sinners are more sinful than others.
Tell me this. A person can be a great man. Live life full of love and happiness take care of his family. Give to charity and care for the poor. A man that contributes to society and really makes the world a better place. However if this person marries another man, automatically he is going to hell? Or if he doesn’t believe in God he is going to hell? That does not sound like a compassionate God, but a spiteful one.
I always thought it was interesting that a supposedly perfect, divine being had such petty human flaws and emotions.
As a human being He was like us in all aspects except for sin. With God noting is impossible. If that were not the case there would be no God and no creation to boot.
That still avoids the idea of a supposedly “perfect” being having such personality flaws such as jealosy and anger.
No one goes to hell automatically. The fact one has homosexual tendencies does not guarantee one is going to hell any more than the tendency one might have to appropriate something that is not rightfully his own. These tendencies or temptations are part of God’s plan to bring us to perfection, that is, a greater acceptance of Him. If the understanding of temptation is troublesome to you, just think about the temptations Jesus who knew no sin was subjected too. They were far greater than most of us are subjected to. He was destined to suffer and die at the hands of the very humans beings he was attempting to save. Just imagine the temptation it must have been for him to suffer and die even for the sake of his persecutors.
So when does one go to Hell then? What determines how one gets to hell? Gods plan stinks, look at how terrible things are in the world. Thanks God
So, god’s plan is make me gay but make that a sin. God’s plan is for me to watch all the other happy couples enjoying life and I’m just supposed to be lonely until I die. If that’s god’s plan, then god is just a jerk. He is less like a divine being and more like a kid with a magnifying glass killing ants.
So you actually are saying that God caused me to have a “tendency” toward being drawn to and attracted to same gender individuals as His plan to bring me to perfection and in order to accomplish this plan and put myself on the road to the Kingdom of Heaven, I must resist the “tendency” He bestowed upon me. He did not intend for me to find or have a loving relationship with an individual He gave me the “tendency” to be attracted to but instead to either live a lie (pretend to be heterosexual) and fulfilling biological function (I passed that one times three) or that I forgo the most basic need of a human being …. fully loving another and being loved fully by another. His plan for me and others like me is to live a life devoid of the love that He planned for all human beings to experience. Hmmmm …… He was either really peeved off when He created us or chose to make us a part of a large longitudinal experiment or decided we were not “worthy” of being fully human or …. you are mistaken in your assumption and He will clear that up for you in the future.
Because you disagree, does not mean youo hate.
No, but taking away someones rights because you “disagree” with their existence is hate. Treating a group as subhuman because you “disagree” with their lives is hate.
From the comments of some here … we are “subhuman”, we are nothing more than rutting animals. We are the most current focus of their “superiority” ….. who will replace us when the government finally takes steps to treat us equally under the law?
I’m not sure, although I’m guessing the religious right won’t have a problem finding at least one more group to hate before fading into obscurity. My guess will be Muslims, as that one has already kind’ve started. But, by that point, the religious right will probably be viewed the same way we view the KKK.
I am not taking away anyones right that exist. Because I disagree does not mean I am treating them subhuman. You try to use to much analogy to force another to your views by intimidation and your own outright hatred. We can see that in some of the protest the extreme hatred.
By voting against civil marriage, you are in fact taking away my rights. By taking away my rights as a citizen, you treat me less than others. You dehumanize me and millions of other Americans through your actions. So, continue lying to yourself about the harm you are causing. Continue lying to yourself, saying that you are doing the “right” thing. All you are doing is harming your fellow Americans simply because of their sexual orientation. But go on, lie to yourself so that you can sleep at night.
so you want to force your waying of thinking on me, that is how it goes. Because I do not agree with them I am dehumizing them. And so it goes on, you riducule others because they do not think your way.
You’ve confused “force my way of thinking” with “not allowing you to take away my rights” I don’t care about what you think about me. Just like racists are allowed to be racist, you are allowed to be as bigoted as your shriveled black heart can muster. All I care about is stopping you from destroying the Constitution and taking away my rights.
name calling will not get you anywhere. Look the word bigoted up, so many mis-use it. Destroying the Constitution, started when they took prayer out of school.
This explains it. You are living in some sort of fantasy world. They never took prayer out of school, they just made it so the school cannot force students to pray. In case you forgot, the first amendment prevents the government from endorsing a particular religion. If you don’t like it, then try to repeal the first Amendment. I’m sure that will go over well…
bigorty: narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination
That seems to fit you to a tee.
I am very open minded, though I do not agee with you, I do not hate anyone so am not biased, just because I have a diffrence of opinion. I do not discriminate. Like you say that is the way the law is. School Prayer does not force anyone to pray, unlike say NY and other states that allow children to pray to Allah and make special allowances during the day, they let them pray in the streets. Where is your anquish in using public funds there? Sounds like bigotry.
Wow, I think you need to get to bed, your rambling is starting to get even more incoherent.
” I do not discriminate.” – Except against gay people.
As for the rest of your post, what? I never said that children cannot pray in school. Children have always been, and always will be, allowed to pray in school. That has not changed, but apparently in your alternate reality it has. The only change is that the school cannot sponsor the prayer, as that is a form of the government endorsing religion. When you say “when they took prayer out of school.” you can only be referring to schools no longer being able to sponsor prayer. But you probably won’t read any of this, let alone understand it. But you keep your victim complex going, it’s probably the only thing keeping you alive.
I tend to read everything no matter how insulting someone can be. Keep thinking that, as they allow Muslims to do what they please. I do not discrimnate against anyone. But as for your continued itsults,it is ok I forgive you :) Have a good night
It’s ok. I almost forgive your stupidity, it’s not your fault the education system failed you.
How can you have freedom of religion if you’re forcing students to adopt one religion? That’s what would be destroying the Constitution.
you mean like allowing Muslims to pray in schools, with their prayer rugs and beads.
Yes, as long as the school is not sponsoring it. Just like Muslim students can pray, Christian students can also pray, along with any other religion.
during school hours? I do not think so. Christians had to go to Court just to allow Bible studies after schools, and the bend over back words for Muslim Prayer.
Well, for one, which court case are you talking about, assertions mean nothing without evidence.
Second, even if there was a court case about Christians being allowed to pray in schools, then that would set a precedent. There would not need to be another court case for Muslims afterward. But this point doesn’t even matter as Christian students have always been allowed to pray in school, yes EVEN during school hours. They just weren’t allowed to FORCE students to pray. But I know you won’t ever let yourself stop being the victim, so you will continue to rant and rave about imaginary threats to imaginary rights.
Nice try, but you’re not turning this around.
What you’re arguing would be like me, being a Christian, saying that legalizing the Jewish religion would infringe on my rights and be forcing me to accept that religion. That the Jewish people are trying to intimidate me and that they hate me because they want the same rights that I already have.
It doesn’t fly. It’s illogical. Just because someone else lives differently than you, that doesn’t mean you’re now suddenly not free to live how you want. Why does equality for others make you feel less free?
I think what they are actually afraid of is their bigotry becoming less socially acceptable.
No need to try, you have been the one trying to change things to your views. What are you going to want to change next. You have liberalized the Country so much look at the mess it is in.
Answer my questions. You can’t answer them because you know it proves that you’re wrong.
We have freedoms in this country and we don’t (we shouldn’t) use the law to try to make others more like us. There is nothing wrong with others making choices that differ from our own. It’s great that you have religious beliefs, but you need to realize that it’s not fair to use the law to try and force others to adhere to your religious beliefs. That’s something they do in places like Iraq.
The liberals have been destroying the Constitution in one way or another, taking Prayer out of school. I know you will bring up blacks and women to legitimize it. Though those are different things, yes I know you disagree. As you will when I say Mohammed is a false prophetl
Boo hoo, you can’t use public funds to promote your religion. Prayer isn’t forbidden from schools, you just don’t get to force people to pray. Deal with it.
insulting are not you. Well, you are right the liberals changed the way we do things, not for the best.
Wait, are you really upset that you cannot force your religion on other people? Are you really that delusional? Oh and by the way, the only thing insulting here is your lack of understanding of the Constitution. If you want to try to repeal the first amendment, go right ahead. I don’t think you will be very successful though…
Okay, I know you have all these irrelevant attacks and criticisms, but I’m asking you a very specific question and you seem unable to answer it.
You seem to want to impose your religion on others, that’s what you’re doing by voting to ban gay marriage and that’s what you’re implying with your “taking prayer out of school” — why do you think it’s bad when Muslims do it, but not when Christians do it?
You seem unable to answer these questions.
He just doesn’t want to admit that he thinks a Christian version of Sharia law would be a good thing.
I am not voting to ban gay marriage. Muslims, look how they dragged our Ambassador through the streets. Simply because their religion calls us all infidels, and we are to be exterminated. Just read the Koran.
Psst, the bible also says to kill non believers. If you are trying to take the high ground with your own “holy” book, it’s not going to work out too well for you. Also, if you can judge all Muslims based on the actions of the extremists, then I get to judge all Christians based on the actions of YOUR extremists.
Quote? You also have to remember as few do, the Bible has to be taken as a whole.
Deuteronomy 17: 2-5
” You also have to remember as few do, the Bible has to be taken as a whole.” – If you won’t take the Quran as a whole, then I won’t take the bible as a whole. If you get to judge an entire religion based on a few verses, then I get to judge your entire religion based on a few verses.
I will admit I have not read the Quran, what I hear it says that Infidils shold be killed.
As does the Bible.
Does that mean you’re voting yes??You aren’t saying, are you, that all Muslims are like the ones who killed Ambassador Stevens. That’d be like saying all Christians are like the ones who attend the Westboro Baptist Church. I think you’re being too general in your talk about Muslims.
That’s fine, but you’re engaging in the exact behavior your criticize when Muslims do it. That’s hypocrisy.
I admit I am not perfect and do not do everything right. I do not put myself above others, though because of my beliefs some perceive that.
You put your beliefs before the civil rights of your fellow citizens.
Then I would be a hypocrite.
Wow, thanks for admitting it.
trying to be funny,
No, just surprised that you admitted to being a hypocrite. That is probably the first honest thing I’ve seen you say.
If you read your post and my post, I did not admit to being a hypocrite. And I will leave it at that, since you seem to put words in peoples mouths.
Well, maybe think twice before holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself to.
You say you have a problem with stuff like Sharia law, but then why do you want prayer back in school? It’s okay when you do it? Come on, you know that’s not right.
Yes, all these terrible “women voting” and interracial marriage! I’m sure you would love to go back to your “good ole’ days”.
I do not mind if you have to change the subject.
Well, that’s what you are referring to, isn’t it? The country has become “liberalized” to the point where women are treated as equals, interracial marriage is legal, and you cannot go out a beat gay people to death. I’m sure you are ever so disappointed about that last one.
See how blinded you are, I would never condone beating someone to death no matter who they are. That is a tool you liberals like to use to incite others.
Well of COURSE not, as long as us queers shut up and learn our place. Otherwise you’ll have to “discipline” us…
Because you disagree, doesn’t mean you have to use the law to hinder or punish those you disagree with.
No one is being punished here when society puts the best interests of children, the offspring of married couples, first. The government gives alms to the poor. Why is it unfair for the government not to give the same treatment to those who can fend for themselves?
You haven’t proven that. You’ve picked out discredited and flawed studies and pushed it forward as though you’re being honest. The Prop 8 and DOMA cases looked over the studies you pushed — they even had the author of one come in and admit that gays make great parents, just as good as straight ones. So you may be comfortable with the dishonesty and misinformation, but it doesn’t fly in the places that require the absolute truth.
I think what you’re saying about children being harmed and unable to fend for themselves is truly disgusting and hateful. I know you’ve convinced yourself you’re the good guy and that you only care about children, but you disdain and disgust for gays is baseless in terms of reality. Children aren’t threatened by gay parents. Maybe in terms of your faith, yes, but in real world terms? Absolutely not. Like I said, I think it’s disgusting for you to suggest that gay parents, simply by being gay, harm children. That sickens me.
Except screw the chidlren adopted by same sex couples, right? Screw the loving family that couple can provide and screw all the unwanted children, many of whom are considered unadoptable, who are looking for homes. Heaven forbid a “gay” gives a child a loving famliy and a chance at a better life. You put someone’s sexual orientation above the well being of a child every time you vote against equality. Marriage laws can do a lot to help a couple raise a child, but if that child is being rasied by a same sex couple, then your answer is screw them. How very “Christian” of you…
haha, cause Jesus would really like that
Psssst …… men and women who are not married produce kids too …. a signed marriage license nor public vows magically makes adults fertile or behave in a procreative manner…. wishful thinking perhaps but not the way things work biologically.
If you believe that you have ‘the children’s best interests’ at heart than you are mad.
Yes. That is very true. Sometimes people jump to that conclusion based on past experience with others who disagree and turn out to be very hateful. It’s not a good default position to have, though.
I imagine some people have gone through so much, they can not understand because others disagree does not mean they hate them. But, having them try to have me change my belief’s will not work either. I do not pretend to understand their feelings, as I percieve the opposite is the same.
Thanks for yet another clarification, EJ Parsons. I have no love of the Quakers, whose decades-long hostility toward Israel and love affair with its Arabs remains a disgrace to supposedly peace-loving folks. But one always wonders how you know that persons who have deep faith but don’t have yours are somehow unable to communicate with God, where you obviously can. A puzzlement.
Ah, more hogwash from high atop DELUSION MOUNTAIN. Your slimey buddy the vote suppressor Summers is going to LOSE this election, and you blame the papers. Typical TeaPublican whining. Before a TeaPublican goes talking about God and Jesus, he or she should start actually LIVING like Jesus who in today’s twisted and nonsensical TeaPublican land of DELUSION MOUNTAIN would be banished from TeaPublican DELUSION MOUNTAIN because he loves the poor and weak, wants the rich to help others instead of being selfish greedy slimeballs, and is a Prince of Peace. TeaPublicans. Their HYPOCRISY RUNNETH OVER.
And you know they aren’t? How omniscient of you.
Fantastic letter, Ms. Weston. Thank you.
Sheila Jane, Rev. Throckmorton, Janet Weston: good letters.
Dear Ms. Weston: Thank you for your lovely letter to the editor. It gives me great peace. I have a very strong Quaker background and your letter brought it all back to me. Tolerance is the key to living in peace with the Spirit and to my mind, is the key to Quakerism itself. As a gay man who has been in a loving and committed relationship for the past 13 years with the one person in the world who makes me complete and happy, it does my heart good to read letters like yours. Thank you very much.
Post it again. You have shown “issues” in the past with credible sources and telling the truth about what those sources state. As for the study I presented (with citation by the way) sure it does. It shows a biological reaction. Are you honestly going to try to tell me that a gay male “chooses” to dilate his pupils when looking at an attractive male? That attraction and subsequent biological reaction by the participant shows that somewhere, behind the scenes, there are chemicals being released into sections of the brain to cause that reaction. The pupil dilation is an example of a biological reaction to attraction. Is that really so hard to understand?
If by “violate its own teachings” you mean “follow the law” then yes. Churches don’t get to break the law because they don’t feel like following the law.
Left-handedness might be an inherited trait. Homosexuality is not inherited at birth. This has been more than amply shown in a study of a very large twin sampling randomly chosen. In each case where one twin was identified as gay, the other twin was gay only in 1 out 9 cases. If genes were at play one would expect a near one-for-one correlation.
And here you go, continuing to lie. All a twin study shows is that the cause is most likely not GENETIC. It does NOT rule out all biological causes. Misrepresentation is a form of lying whawell.
I still want you to post the link to the study you are talking about, because, to be honest, your history of lying and stretching the truth make you very hard to believe.
It becomes more and more evident that those who profess to “know” and quote various studies do not understand nor do they further research on the studies they refer to. The Ruth Institute, NOM, the Witherspoon Institue and various other organizations are not experts and are known for purposefully misleading, misusing, misinterpreting, and misrepresenting scientific studies (as well as purposefully conducting studies that fail to meet basic scientific method).
whawell …. left handedness has been proven to be inherited. The Genome Project has been completed as far as identifying but it will be decades before the complex functions of specific genes and combinations of genes is understood. Even in the case of identical twins, studies have shown that there are differences in-utero that effect the development etc of each individual fetus. No “identical” twins are truly identical.
Perhaps you should delve further in this topic.
Tell us why that is important. You keep saying the same things and ignoring what people say in response to you.
Why is it important that a gay person be born that way? Do you have to prove you were born straight to get a marriage license? No. Do you have to prove you were born a Christian to be free to be a Christian? No. So why does it matter here for gay people?
To brucefl56:
I stated that if you are putting your beliefs above the rights of your fellow citizens. You said that if you did that, you would be a hypocrite. You are in fact putting your beliefs before the rights of your fellow citizens, hence you are admitting to be a hypocrite.