Dear Friends
On Veterans Day, all Mainers unite in their respect for the thousands of residents who have answered our country’s highest call. We are free and strong, thanks to the courage of our servicemen and servicewomen and their patient families. Our thanks must be said and shown.
Today, Ann and I are honored to visit with veterans at the Maine Veterans’ Home and pay our respects at the Maine Veterans Memorial Cemetery. But every day, my administration is advocating for our bravest to make the Maine they return to stronger than the one they were called from to serve. As they fought for our freedom, we will fight to ensure they return to the health and higher-education benefits they’ve earned, that Maine businesses see the value of our veterans in the workplace and that their selfless service is not forgotten.
This commitment is consistent with Maine’s tradition of thanking our nation’s heroes. Wreaths from Washington County are placed on headstones at Arlington National Cemetery each holiday season, and friendly Mainers greet troops as they take their first steps back on American soil at Bangor International Airport.
Our appreciation can be expressed in ways that take a minute — a nod of thanks to the driver with the Purple Heart plate or a quiet prayer for those overseas — or it can last a lifetime — such as through volunteering.
We must never forget that our veterans were willing to give anything so we could have everything. To them, our state says thank you.
Gov. Paul R. LePage and first lady Ann LePage
Bangor greeters
Recently, my wife, daughter and I visited Paris, France. As expected, I spent time people watching as the ladies shopped. One evening, we were in a nice leather goods shop and a gentleman joined me on a sofa.
When he spoke English, I asked where he was from. He said Alabama, and I responded I was from Maine. He stated that he had been in Maine only once. While returning from serving in the military in Iraq, he landed in Bangor. I asked if he had seen the “greeters.” He said, “Wow, did I ever!” Going down the receiving line while in uniform, a greeter, seeing his name tag, asked where he was from. The soldier named a town in Alabama.
The greeter asked whether he knew a man with the same last name and gave a first name. The soldier replied, “That is my father!” The greeter’s reply was that, “One of my proudest moments was serving under your father in Vietnam in 1965.” The soldier then told me that one of his proudest possessions now is a picture of himself and the elderly greeter taken at that time.
I almost came to tears, feeling proud of our military and the “greeters” of Bangor.
Frederic Johnson
Waterville
Cleanup efforts
I read with interest the BDN article “ Cleanup of toxins continues as Brooksville ponders taking ownership of Callahan Mine site,” (Oct. 26 BDN) about the ongoing cleanup efforts at the Callahan Mine site in Cape Rosier. It’s particularly troubling that a mine that hasn’t produced copper in 40 years is still threatening public health and the environment. But it also hits close to home, as I am a second-generation commercial fisherman operating out of Bristol Bay, Alaska.
For nearly 10 years, a foreign mining conglomerate has been finalizing plans to build the Pebble Mine, which would be the largest open-pit mine in North America. Like the Callahan Mine, it would produce copper. The Pebble Mine is located at the headwaters of Bristol Bay, known across the world for its abundant supply of wild sockeye salmon.
Unfortunately, the mine and its waste could wipe out the Bay’s nearly 130-year-old fishery and endanger the surrounding area, much like the Callahan Mine has done in Maine.
While the Environmental Protection Agency is forced to retroactively clean up the Callahan site, it has the opportunity to proactively protect Bristol Bay, its fishery, and the native people who call the region home. That’s because it spent more than a year conducting a watershed assessment of how large-scale mining like Pebble would affect Bristol Bay and its salmon. The science has proven what we’ve known all along: The mine and the fishery cannot coexist.
I hope the EPA learns lessons from a Superfund site in Maine and applies it to Alaska, as 14,000 commercial fishing jobs, including mine, could be on the line.
Max Hames
Freeport
Absurd letter
In a recent letter to the BDN a couple wrote about a gay male friend who had decided to marry a woman and was much better off for having done so. The implication is, of course, that all other gay people would be better off doing the same thing. We are to assume from this that sexual orientation is a matter of choice. For the vast majority it is not a matter of choice. People are attracted to each other in a natural way.
Before you ask a gay person to “go straight,” think about the following scenario: You would be required to mate with a person whose gender did not attract you. If this sounds absurd remember that it is exactly what you would require of a gay person if forced to “go straight.” It is equally absurd.
Joe Haroutunian
Steuben
Natural fit
With the expansion of the Downeaster to Brunswick, and the overall success of the train, Amtrak and the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority should look next into the feasibility of expanding service up to Rockland. With relatively little investment, Maine could easily and quickly expand its passenger rail service along the midcoast to increase tourism, mobility, road safety and private investment.
The Eastern Maine Railroad currently operates on the Rockland branch (Brunswick to Rockland) with a scenic train during the summers. However, the communities along the line and Route 1 could undoubtedly benefit from regular rail service. First and foremost, any mass transit that has the ability to take pressure off of Route 1 should be considered. Secondly, the Maine Department of Transportation rebuilt the line not that long ago, allowing the current scenic train to operate around 50 mph.
The costs of new platforms are relatively cheap and could be built quickly in the communities along the rail line. With upgraded signal systems and rail crossings, the train could be quickly and efficiently whisking people up the midcoast. With high volumes of traffic up the midcoast, a rebuilt rail line between Brunswick and Rockland and Amtrak’s resources, expanding daily Downeaster service to Rockland is a natural fit.
Eben Sweetser
Orono
Great letter Mr. and Mrs. LePage. I salute you for all that you are doing to try to save Maine.
Yeah, tax cuts to the wealthy in order to cut benefits to the poor, some of whom are veterans… great job…!
I think you are misreading the governor’s intention when you imply he is attempting to cut taxes to the wealthy in order to cut benefits to the poor. On the contrary, the governor believes that by cutting taxes for the job or potential job creators, the poor and the middle class will eventually benefits with more and better paying jobs. One doesn’t necessarily make the poor better off by making the rich less wealthy. I know you probably disagree but bear in mind previous administrations raised taxes to expand social programs for the poor. Look at the economy we have today when nearly half of the people are on some sort of government aid.
I know that is what the Governor and the republican party in general believes… It is, however, unsubstantiated. The Congressional Research Service has done research showing there is little significant gain in either job creation or economic growth from cutting taxes on the wealthiest. To the contrary, the inequality that is helped along by such policies is shown to be a drag on the economy because the middle and lower income people have less, spend less, drive demand less. That is just one aspect of this claim that cutting taxes on the “job creators” translates into jobs and economic growth.
This is taken from the link below and is based on analysis of the data over many years and many changes in tax policy, that is, raising or lowering taxes on given segments of income earners.
“If tax cuts for high-income earners generate substantial real economic activity
and job creation, then we should expect to see two things in the data. First,
employment growth should be stronger in the years after tax cuts for these
earners. Second, parts of the country with a larger share of high-income earners
should experience stronger employment growth after national tax cuts for these
taxpayers, because the places where they live receive a larger share of the
national tax cuts.
What do we actually see after combing through a half-century of economic data?
Neither of these predictions is borne out. …[presents evidence, along with
supporting graphs]…, we have found no evidence that such cuts lead to
substantially faster employment growth at the national, state or even ZIP-code
level.
Tax cuts for everyone else are a much more effective path to job creation. Our
research found a statistically significant and positive relationship between tax
cuts for the bottom 95 percent and job growth at both the national and state
levels. … Lower-income taxpayers spend a higher share of their tax cuts. …
Investment also increases after tax cuts for the bottom 95 percent…
Over all, our research shows that tax cuts for the bottom 95 percent are much more
effective than tax cuts for the top 5 percent at increasing job creation in the
subsequent two years. Other analysts reach similar conclusions.”
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/do-tax-cuts-stimulate-the-economy.html
Reagan’s tax cuts are often brought up by people trying to validate this notion, but Reagan’s tax cuts must be looked at in their context to be understood. Inflation was an issue at that time. The Fed raised interest rates to slow economic activity and cool the inflationary trend. That drove the country into a Fed-orchestrated recession. When inflation was under control, Reagan’s military spending was a stimulus to the economy as was his tax cuts. Money was tight, both government spending and tax cuts loosened the money supply and stimulated growth.
But as the following article points out, the Bush tax cuts did not stimulate growth:
“Employment grew at an average annual rate of only 0.9 percent from
November 2001 to September 2007, as compared with an average of 2.5
percent for the comparable periods of other post-World War II
expansions. In addition, real wages and salaries grew at a 1.8 percent
average annual rate in the 2001-2007 expansion, as compared with a 3.8
percent average annual rate for the comparable periods of other
post-World War II expansions.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-39741024/did-the-bush-tax-cuts-lead-to-economic-growth/
Both the Governor and the republican party are wrong to think tax cuts to the wealthy stimulate growth by their very nature. More often than not they simply make life harder for everyone but the very wealthy. It is especially so now because government budgets are being squeezed to badly, basic services are being cut off… and as in the case with LePage the massive tax cuts to the wealthiest Maine families, about 400 families, were pushed through and then the hole in the budget was stopped by making cuts to services and thousands of people in need rely on. It was ideological, political, unnecessary…
If there is anything to be learned in the last four years is that businesses have been hesitant to hire and invest for the following reasons: The prospect of higher taxes in the future, burdensome regulations on the horizon, and Obamcare. They have been shouting this through the rooftops but the Obama administration just keeps ignoring their plea. (Obamacare is now projected to cost 2.6 trillion dollars over the next 10 years as opposed to the 0.9 trillion dollar cost that was initially anticipated by the administration at the time of its enactment).
I’m not in the business of hiring and investing at this point in my life, but business friends of mine have been telling me this. Now, if small businesses – traditionally the initial engine of growth after a recession – are reluctant to invest, what makes you think larger businesses will want to start hiring and investing in a sluggish economy that has not recovered much since the last recession? You see, it’s not what you claim happened in the past that will make the difference. Rather, it’s the situation that exists today with burdensome government and massive government debt being the real obstacles to prosperity. Also, on account of its addiction to spending, giving government a credit card with almost no limit to continue its spending habit will only increase the national and state debts. If you think cutting services to people in need is a bad thing today, then just wait and witness the day when the government can no longer afford to spend anymore to keep poverty programs going. It’s far better to bite the bullet now than to kick the can further down the road as previous state administrations have done.
A select and vocal group of “conservative” business leaders (read: we want more tax cuts to give out as bonuses or to shore up our stock price) say what you claim they say… inaccurate as it is. MANY small business groups and business owners say the exact opposite, the Maine Small Business Association, for one.
ANY business that has been in operation for the past 50 years has YEARLY dealt with changes in tax codes and regulations… I worked for a number of years in a relatively large biotech firm manufacturing a product that was FDA regulated down to the individual documents used to formulate the chemistry that went into one of their test kits for sale. The regulatory department and the QA people kept tabs on what regs and requirements were current and what was expected to change…
The FDA was VERY responsive to the firm’s business needs, because when millions of dollars are in play with inventory, workforce, equipment costs they understand the risks being taken, and kept a good working relationship to keep product flowing. As it was an important, mandated product testing for antibiotics in milk at farms and dairies, they understood the firm’s concerns and needs. In NO WAY did it slow production, hiring, manufacturing of the product so long as we had customers to buy the product, and when the product was manufactured and labeled properly. If the documentation showed shoddy labeling control, manufacturing, or testing results, they didn’t hesitate to shut us down.
This “argument” that “uncertainty” forcing businesses to withhold selling goods or services and hiring workers to make their goods or services available is complete nonsense… If there is a customer, the business will make every attempt to satisfy the customer with what they have to sell. Without customers, NO business will hire a bunch of people to make product or provide a service that nobody is buying… Consumer DEMAND is the engine of growth and why every president confronted with a recession provides at least some STIMULUS spending to boost consumer demand… Reagan, Bush, FDR, Obama all used Keynesian stimulus spending using govt as the “spender of last resort” to boost economic activity. It is as if you people didn’t know a Great Recession took place.
The illogic of what you say is blatant. What would make small businesses “the engine of growth” after a recession? Their investments? Will they invest in new machinery, new workers if their selves are full of unsold product? If it is a furniture maker, or they install cabinets, do roofing and carpentry, if no one is building new houses, if no one is buying furniture… will that business buy new equipment and hire the folks to use it if no one is buying what they’re offering?
Give them a 50% cut in their taxes… will that make the new equipment or new hires more productive or make the goods or services suddenly fly off the shelves? Your “confidence” argument makes no sense when DEMAND for goods or services is so poor because consumers are NOT buying and small businesses are not producing because nobody is buying.
What you say has been repeated ad nauseam for the past three years. Repeating it over and over makes it no more true.
I never said I was against government regulations and taxation. I’m against excesses of both however, or even the perception of excesses. As I explained earlier, government is way too big. The country is obviously on a slippery slope while heading in the same direction as Greece and Spain that can no longer pay their debts and put austerity programs in effect without fear of public intimidation, looting and destruction on a massive scale, and chaos. The cuts to the so-called rich LePage wants to make include businesses that in many cases only hire a handful of employees. We need to draw people away from dependency instead of enabling it as prior admins have.
You recite several of the myths of the right very faithfully.
Size of govt: as a percentage of total US population, the size of total govt is about what it was in the 1960’s. Most of the growth in govt has been the hiring of more teachers.
Unlike Greece or Spain, we have our own sovereign currency. Our debt and deficits are in no way comparable to Greece or Spain relative to the size of our economy.
Tax cuts to small businesses can be helpful; what I wrote above shows that to be so, so some of what LePage has done might actually prove to be helpful in spite of himself. But in general, tax cuts to the wealthy do nothing for the economy but make wealthy people more wealthy. There is no trickle down. That is a sham and a myth.
As far as chaos, looting and destruction… if the scale of inequality continues to grow in this country egged on by stilted tax policies that favor the wealthy, by more income and opportunity going to the top, more wealth being redistributed upwards to those that already own about 90% of the wealth of the country… I can see riots and chaos. That is what happens in societies that are grossly unequal… The lower and middle classes get squeezed to the breaking point. Right now the middle class owns 70% of the debt in this country. They might consume a bunch of stuff they don’t really need, but as far as education and living, they can’t get by on the flat wages and incomes that have existed in this country since the 70’s. Income growth has not proceeded at the same pace for all income earners, as it did from 1945 until 1979. Since then, the rich have gotten richer… a lot richer… and the rest of us have been given miserly increases. Some have lost ground.
And then there’s the dependency myth. I’d love to see the data that you use to back that up. The women and children that typically use TANF benefits do so on average of about 18 months. The dependency I’d like to see addressed, which costs taxpayers astronomically more, is corporate welfare… the subsidies and handouts, the tax breaks, the deferred royalties…
When lower income people stop voting for the very people that take advantage of lower income people, things might change. So long as lower income people keep voting against their own interests and voting for bad policies… nothing will change; corporations and the wealthy will continue to benefit at the expense of all the rest of us. Our roads and infrastructure will continue to deteriorate. Health care and education will be out of reach for increasing number of people without risking huge debt or bankruptcy.
Before we can discuss the economy intelligently several facts need to be established. Comparing the size of government to its population as you did does not make economic sense. Rather the comparison of the size of government should be to a measure of economic output such as the GDP, or better yet, the net GDP that takes into account losses as well such as the recent devastation wreak by Hurricane Sandy. Anyway, for starts look take a look at the link below. Make sure you check out the debt, deficit, and welfare charts while at it.
Government Debt Chart: United States 1997-2017 – Federal State Local Data
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1997_2017USb_H0f
Here are other pertinent facts you need to consider. Keep in mind the U.S debt now exceeds its GDP, the total annual amount of goods and services in dollars produced in the U.S. By most economists, a national debt equal to the GDP is a major turning point from a safe zone to a dangerous one.
dependency of in the us. – Google Search
https://www.google.com/search?q=dependency+of+in+the+US.&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
If the share of US govt employment to total US employment in 1960 was 15%, and total share in March 2011 was 17%, and GDP for 1960 (in yr 2000 valued dollars) was $2.82 trillion, and GDP in March of 2011 was $13.2 trillion, the employment numbers for people in govt show an extremely productive, lean govt workforce in 2011 compared to 1960. No large increase in the size of govt when looking at percentage of total US employment or in GDP.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/06/steve-moore/steve-moore-says-ratio-people-working-government-m/
http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354
The link for dependency shows the results for a google search. The CNN article is written by a conservative at the Heritage Foundation and lacks objectivity.
The link for the debt shows the increase in debt, which doesn’t prove anything. The two unfunded wars and the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 account for a huge proportion of the federal debt, the results of policies that have hurt the economy in many ways. The drop in GDP of about 9% in 2009 as a result of the Great Recession makes any calculation about debt or the deficit appear worse. Stimulus spending accounted for a small increase in debt, but is growing GDP as the economy picks up. Again, it is as if folks like you don’t know that we just had the worse economic crisis since the 30’s and the govt HAD to respond to it.
I’m sorry, but the economic policies that have been in vogue for the last 30 – 40 years have created massive inequality, squeezed the middle class almost into non-existence, destroyed the manufacturing base of this country moving it overseas (thank Bain Capital and Romney for some of that…) and has redistributed wealth upwards to the elites of this country. ALL the numbers show this… Your repeating the rhetoric that has duped the country up to this point doesn’t work anymore. It is failed policy. The state of the nation’s fiscal health is evidence of that. Blaming the poor is BS. We are the most miserly of advanced nations when it comes to benefits. We are one of the LEAST taxed nations among advanced nations. You people are, well, off your rockers… sorry.
Update: looking at the governmentspending site, this link shows welfare spending as a percentage of GDP, general government spending as % of GDP and total spending as % of GDP. Welfare is very small part and relatively stable over many decades.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1903_2012USp_13s1li011mcn_40t70tF0t
Take a look at your source again. It shows the following:
“Total government employment, January 1960: 8,307,000
Total government employment, March 2011: 22,166,000”
These figures show that the federal government now employs 2.668 times more worker today while the population has roughly doubled. This does not even reflect the fact that computers have reduced the amount of work very significantly since 1960. Besides, when measuring the size of government one must also look at the amount of money it spends – that is, it spends roughly 3 and one half times per capita as it used to in 1960 after inflation is taken into account.
2.668 times increase in govt employees while the population doubled is about right. The pop increasing by a factor of 2, and govt emplyment increasing by a factor of 2 plus. The increase represented by the decimal places is largely because more teachers are teaching our children.
Lots of reasons for more spending. Older population, increased medical expenses for them, two unfunded wars, and several other military excursions since 1960, military build up, build up and privatization (think waste and fraud with some services tacked on) of the national security state… the numbers for welfare and general govt spending (admin costs) haven’t changed much at all given the size of the population. Definitely more govt spending going on, but not because we are giving it all away to the poor. I don’t think you’ve made your argument.
The number of teachers is not factored in in the federal work force. They are hired by the individual state governments in the Union. But their ranks too have increased dramatically, thanks in large measure to the social breakdown in our society due to liberal views.
My point has been that the federal government cannot spend its way out of this recessionary cycle. It has been trying to do that since Bush’s last year in office by using incentive money. Five years later with more than 5.5 trillion dollars added to the federal debt the economy is not much better and is arguably worse off. Right now the federal government borrows more than 40 cent of every dollar it spends. The amount it spends is taken directly out of the private sector that supports it and from our future when it has to pay back the ever increasing debt with interest. Government incentives only help when the economy is in a cyclical downturn AND is otherwise healthy. This economy is far from being healthy, and dependency is at near record high levels. Obamacare too is adding to our woes, and we haven’t seen anything yet. Health insurance costs nationwide are projected to rise more than 7% in the next 12 months while these costs in Maine – thanks to some of LePage’s reforms last year – are project to stay about the same and possibly even decrease. In the last 12 months alone there has been a mere increase of 1.7%, much less than the national average.
I’ve got no clue where you get your information, but it bears no resemblance to the economists I read. Have a good one…
I’ve got no clue where you get your information, but it bears no resemblance to the economists I read. And the figures I gave for total govt employment includes state and local figures, including teachers. Have a good one… We’ll have to agree to disagree. Adios.
Incidentally, check out one more source of information that shows that government annual spending of anywhere between 600 and 700 billion dollars in 1960 is now nearly 7 times greater today at nearly 4500 billion. These figures take inflation into account. Yet the population in 1960 was 150 million, one roughly one half of what it is today. This means the U.S. is spending 3 and one half times money more per capita then it did in 1960.
Tell me, how does this information square up to your statement: “Size of govt: as a percentage of total US population, the size of total govt is about what it was in the 1960’s.”?
SOURCE: size of us government historically when compared to population – Google Search
https://www.google.com/search?q=Size+of+us+government+historically+when+compared+to+population&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Great post. However the repubs have clearly demonstrated that the truth is not part of their agenda and I seriously doubt if any of them will accept what you have put forth.
I’ve been at it awhile… and you’re right. Not too many come to agree with my opinion. It is what major economists are saying, those that aren’t gaming their profession for their own gain, that is.
The tax cut was for all taxpayers. 70,000 tax payers were dropped from the tax roles. The top tax rate of 8.5% kicks(ed) in at approximately $20,000. Tax cuts were not for the wealthy only. You are spreading disinformation.
As with the Bush tax cuts, from which I got something like $600 back which I used to pay my taxes, the LePage tax cuts went overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Mainers. It is by no means disinformation. And then the hole that these tax cuts made in the budget was stopped by making cuts to services. Veterans, some of whom are homeless and living on the streets of Portland and Bangor, are the direct recipients of this misguided, unsubstantiated policy that largess to the wealthiest Mainers is good for everybody. I think you would have a hard time convincing homeless vets of that…
Great job Bangor greeters. I’ve had several opportunities to meet the greeters and always find it uplifting.
Gov. & Ms. LePage–I have several ancestors buried in Arlington. I totally respect our veterans. The veterans I respect the most nowadays are the ‘Veterans for Peace’. These brave people not only gave their service to our country, but figured out how our imperialistic militarism is destroying our country AND are still showing the courage that it takes to fight by fighting the biggest evil in the world today, our own death machine.
Peace.
Is it just that the letter s from the Govenor that you hate? or do you just have to make everything a poltical ssue?
Thank you, gov. LePage for your wishes.
Who better to lobby for the proper use of the military than veterans? They saw (and see) first hand how privatized contractors were taking over the jobs they were trained to do and paid 5 or 6 times the pay soldiers take home. It is no wonder people like Rob-me said that the 47% were “moochers” for not paying income tax not realizing a good deal of them are soldiers in uniform, some of them being foreclosed on from crooked banks, finding health care for their PTSD or physical injuries sparse, not finding work when they get home… having to go to fight a war that they were lied into and all about making private contractors rich and oil execs happy… Who better to set the record straight?
And I wonder who politicized this letter to the editor first…? LePage brought up his agenda of so called job creation and business support… although there isn’t a whole lot of evidence it has done ANYTHING yet… except give massive tax cuts to about 400 of Maine’s wealthiest families and cut benefits the poor, some of whom are VETERANS.
Talk is cheap, Larry.
Joe Haroutunian–These people who suggest moving to the opposite sex would probably think one can pray away the gay. They have no clue.
Praying the gay away has been accomplished with a relative in my family. You have no clue about the power of the grace of God. Let his grace work on you sometime. You might find that God is not such a bad guy after all.
ROFLOL!!! Sure… and Bigfoot eats at my place on Sundays.
One was forced into the closet by the guilt his family heaped upon him… a simple physical test can demonstrate the truth.
God’s grace works in me everyday. Praying the gay away is simply a form of brainwashing. It is proven to be detrimental to children. If an adult so chooses to lie to the one they ‘love’ and to themselves that is their choice. However, there are many who experiment in being gay or are bi sexual and fall in love with someone of the opposite sex and good for them. It didnt work for me and God abhors liars. I do not choose to be one. God bless you. I prayed for you today. Read your Bible.
If you think ‘gay’ is curable …… oh my. Please that is simply a lie.
We don’t simply switch sides…………
Just because your relative no longer professes to be a homosexual doesn’t mean they’ve changed. Personally, I think this is very harmful as it forces one to repress their true feelings. I know several people who were terribly depressed living a lie and who are 100% more happy now that they are “out”.
Good luck with making that stick.
Homosexual orientation is an addiction that can only get worse with further engagement. Like most sexual addictions it is often very difficult to overcome. This doesn’t mean one cannot and should not abstain from sexual contact. If heterosexuals can and do abstain, why can’t homosexuals abstain as well?
Why should anyone, straight or gay, abstain?
What is the rational reason to do so?
It isnt about lust or sex. it is about love. Over 50% of priests are gay. They dont abstain. They move to a place where they live with a bunch of men. Nuns….same thing.
“Over 50% of priests are gay”. Of course this is just a wild claim. It can’t be backed up with facts. The rest of your statement is just mumbo jumbo.
And probably another 5 or 10 percent of the priests who are not gay, just child molesters. Yet the church is looked upon to establish moral values? What a crock.
Yes, probably there are another 5 or 10 percent of gay priests just as probably there are men on planet Mars. Look I don’t really know how many that are left who have a homosexual orientation. That said, tell me what difference does it really make if they have mastery over their passions?
Relationships are not all about sex.
You have an unhealthy obsession about the sort of relations homosexuals have. You’d be happier if you ignored what people do in private.
I don’t really care what you do in private. That’s your business. I do care however about the social consequences of state endorsement of gay relationships in which sex plays a big part.
What consequences?
Such as??
I’m straight and there is no way I could or would abstain. Why should I expect homosexuals to act any differently. Sex is fun and healthy and good.
You say you can’t abstain because obviously you have either chosen not to abstain or are saying you can’t abstain for argument’s sake. In a marital relationship with the opposite sex, the ability to abstain is a very important part of your relationship with your partner. Women, especially, don’t like to be treated as sexual objects.
?? Why is it very important to abstain in a married relationship? We both LIKE to have sex: it has nothing to do with one partner being a “sexual object”.
I also saw no reason to abstain when I was single, nor do I expect anyone else to.
It is not about sex it is about love, if you do not understand that then we have no more to discuss.
Addiction?
ROFLOL!!! Wow… that’s hysterical!
So, since we’re gay, we shouldn’t have sex, even if we’ve held the same partner for two decades? Really?
Outstanding!
You are aware that it’s not the sex that makes one gay, are you not?
Sexual orientation is not a choice; judging others is.
Engaging in a homosexual act is a choice, also.
Agreed. What is your point?
But abstaining from said act does not make one any less homosexual.
Engaging in heterosexual sex is a choice I make often and always have.
I can’t choose homosexual sex. It’s not my sexual preference…..
Your point?
My choice for a sexual partner is based on who I am attracted to and who I choose. The same goes for everyone. Who you are attracted to is innate.
Your statement is not factual. Indeed in some cases people do make that choice, even consciously. Furthermore, it has now been established from a large statistical study involving identical twins people are NOT BORN (“that way”) with a homosexual orientation. The oft-repeated claim that one cannot change his or her sexual orientation any more than they can change the color of their eyes is demonstrably false. Regrettably this unsupported claim has misled the public at large for many, many decades.
As to judgement, I don’t know exactly what you mean by “judgment”. If I see someone commit a sin or a crime, am I passing judgement in the biblical sense when I recall the event to mind? Obviously not. That is no different than condemning an action. Neither is it judgmental when I remind a person his sinful act or acts might be harmful to his immortal soul. In fact doing so could even be an act of charity if done with the best of intentions.
Christian piffle. A whole bunch of words to make yourself feel good about you being superior to ‘sinners’. At what age did you choose to be straight and no longer entertain homosexual urges?
Christians are NOT BORN (“that way”).
Yet you get all kinds of “special rights” in the civil rights acts of ’64 and ’68.
Hypocrisy as usual… the “choice” argument is moot. It’s been trumped by the choice of religion already.
PS: Still celebrating the win for gay marriage? I know I am!
It is also a sin to say bad things about the President. Just sayin
Only on this forum.
I’m a monozygotic twin. My twin and I are very different in many ways.
When we were young we were more alike than we are as aging adult.
One twin can be gay and the other not.
Yes, one twin can be gay while the other not gay. From birth onward – and even more so, from conception onward – what is left is environmental influence and decisions each makes for themselves as distinct persons. Those decisions and influence even affect their physiology, psychology, and mental state.
So, just for sake of science, you or some other straight man could switch your sexual orientation and become aroused by men? Why don’t you prove your theory.
You couldn’t. I couldn’t either. And those that are truly gay can’t go the other way.
My point is that people aren’t born homosexual. It’s an acquired characteristic. Yes, it’s always possible to become aroused by the same sex. In fact it happens frequently particularly with females who have had bad experiences with male lovers before finding a female who offers them the sympathy and understanding they were looking for in a relationship..
BS whawell. Try understanding the truth. Stop parroting the bigoted spin.
My point is it doesn’t matter.
Your religion is “an acquired characteristic” yet you do not decry the special rights it gets.
Then how do you explain homosexuality in ultra-conservative, sheltered environments and heterosexuality in adopted children raised by liberal, gay parents?
Nurture may oppress or encourage one’s natural orientation, though it does not change it.
I wonder if bigots are born that way?
No one else call you out on the “truth” of changibility of sexual orientation? All that does is support you invalid dogma and support an brainwashing “change” industry.
You can’t deny for instance the fact that some homosexuals become heterosexuals. I know of one person who engaged in same-sex activities for several years. One day through an acquaintance he met an old classmate who had had a crush on him from their days in high school together. She found herself still attracted to him even though he was not sexually attracted to her initially. With time he found in her qualities he admired very much. The friendship grew stronger over time to the point he wanted to marry her. Wisely, she accepted his offer on condition he submitted himself to a period of therapy. While undergoing therapy he agreed to meet and make amends to his father whom he had been alienated to most of his life beginning from childhood. By that time his father had been longing for the son he lost and was ready to be reconciled to him. The father came to know a son he had never known before, and likewise the son came to know a father he had never known before. The healing of this relationship is what really caused a change in this person’s sexual orientation. From that point on he knew he could have a normal relationship with other men, and the longing he had for them in his earlier years of life gradually diminished and vanished. Today he is very happily married and has three children with the one person who really cared for him. According to him, his new-found relationship more than 12 years ago is a miracle come true. They both attest they’ve never felt any closer to each other.
I believe that the choice you have made is to ignore the truth.
You believe…. I know differently.
Your friend simply taught himself to repress his true feelings. He has returned to the closet, and this will likely cause him and his spouse much pain in the future.
You really don’t know my friend. Believe what you want if your assessment makes you feel better.
Good letters all.
If this “gay” person was also attracted to a woman, enough to marry her, then he was bisexual.
So what’s the big deal? Happens a lot. Bi’s get to shop in both aisles. If they’re in a same-sex relationship, they’ll likely identify as being gay.
People shouldn’t confuse this with the false notion that homosexuals can just switch. It doesn’t work that way.
Why does a man- Le Page- vehemently rage at us one day, and then send hugs and kisses to make up, the next?
Students and teachers berated one day, are often veterans, or tomorrow’s veterans. Many schooled in Maine have earned the nation’s highest honor – the Medal of Honor. Dozens more, besides serving honorably in all wars, achieved some of the nation’s distinctive awards for gallantry.
The memorials around the state historically cite the wars and the terrible toll paid for with the blood of Maine veterans. Each Maine community proudly lists those who were born here, went to school here, and gave their lives fighting in some far off land.
Many of those who served were graduates of tiny village schools, some – even the old red school house.
Mr. Sweetster, the ridership estimate for the Downeaster extension to Brunswick is 36,000 one-way fares per year, or 18,000 round-trips. We just spent $38.3 million to fix the track, and that doesn’t include the annual operating subsidy. A round-trip ticket on Concord Trailways between the train station in Brunswick and the train station in Portland is $20. Do the math. We could hand out free round-trip bus tickets for 106 years! He’s my question… Is there any economic point at which passenger trains don’t make sense? Would a feeder bus service from points all over Maine that connect with the Amtrak trains in Portland work be better?
Eben Sweetser
The “overall success” of Amtrak in Maine you speak of is a myth.
For every ticket subsidized by taxpayers on Amtrak, eight tickets on a privately run bus service can be bought.
The individual car is the most Subsidized mode of transportation there is.
And your point would be……………?
Thank you Gov and Mrs. Lepage for your service to the state of Maine, and your attention to the ones that have served to keep this great country free.
I suspect they will be forgotten in the turmoil that we all will be forced to endure in the next few years as Obama’s plans are implemented.
Hey Max,
A mine built over 60 years ago and a brand new state of the art mining facility built today…
not even CLOSE to a realistic comparison
try think with your rationale instead of your emotion…the salmon will be fine, just like the lobster are off the coast of Maine