Biblical text
I enjoyed Steve Zahm’s letter “Bursting Bible bubble,” which appeared in the BDN on Dec. 12. In it he lists the several ancient languages and dialects of the original texts of the scrolls which were to become the Bible.
While not a biblical scholar myself, I was made aware of some original translations that had changed with subsequent editions. One such change was the equivalent of “pedophile.” It was later changed to “homosexual,” of which its equivalent was not included in the original text.
Ed Barrood
Orrington
Constituents have spoken
For a year we’ve both endured hearing about the Republican’s plan for our salvation and the country’s future.
It was rejected by majority rule six weeks ago. Why is House Speaker John Boehner still pushing their plan? The voters have spoken. Will someone please let Boehner know?
David Betts
Bucksport
Respect faiths
I shook my head once again last week when reading another opinion piece about religion and people of faith that fell far short of a respectful treatment.
I am speaking of Erin Donovan’s piece, “Finding Religion at Front Door.” Her “humorous” poke at folks who have found the face of Jesus in everyday items reveals a disdain and trivialization of faith.
She goes on to share a story about a seemingly seedy and unkempt stranger randomly setting up an exercise place near her home as an occasion of a possible Jesus sighting to illicit further guffaws from her readership. Donavan’s attempt at generalizing and blanketing faith and religious people as being like her examples is very distasteful, especially considering her stories and comments tend to take on one example of faith: Christianity. Imagine the outcry if she had chosen Islam or Buddhism as her example.
Christianity seems fair game to poke fun at in American media, and it seems there is a double standard. I guess I was hoping that our own Bangor Daily News would be an exception to the prevailing trend.
Ralph Ackley, Jr.
Machias
Marketing group kudos
While I am not a Maine native, I have lived in Belfast almost 21 years. I have seen many of the changes described in Tom Groening’s recent article. I agree with so many of the comments. MBNA, business groups, the new economic development director and other groups and organizations have brought so much to Belfast.
However, what has not been mentioned, and what may have set many of these “wheels” in motion, is the Waldo County Marketing group. When Debbie Geiger and four of her associates arrived and decided to involve themselves and take a chance in a new venture, things began to happen in Waldo County.
A small group of innkeepers, restaurateurs, business people and store owners all contributed to make press tours possible and see “Where’s Waldo” in print. Within a few years there was more than $2 million worth of advertising generated, talking about Waldo County and Belfast. It was the real impetus for what has followed. Kudos to all, but some of the credit does need to go to the original marketing group of Waldo County.
Belfast continues to reap the benefits.
Ron Kresge
Belfast
Keep Searsport safe
I recently was asked to share my testimony at the Searsport Planning Board’s public hearings concerning DCP Midstream’s application with the general public. I am a native of Searsport, a longtime teacher at the Searsport Elementary School and Searsport’s town historian.
“To endanger a large city population is too great a risk. Searsport has the necessary shipping facilities. It is far away from any large city. If the worst happens, it would happen to a comparative few in this small town.”
No, those are not the words of Conoco Philips, Spectra Energy, or DCP Midstream. Instead, they are words that appeared in a news article published in the Boston Globe in 1945, at the end of World War II. The article continues: “Largely through the care and skill of the men of the Chemical Warfare Service, Searsport successfully faced destruction to serve as a port of embarkation, shipping a vast supply of chemical ammunition and toxic gas during World War II. … With such a large quantity being handled, almost anything could have happened.”
The ammunition was shipped to the Searsport docks by train. My grandfather, Alvin Knox, was the station master then — a very nerve-wracking job.
The town of Searsport was asked to sacrifice its safety during WWII due to its small population and deep harbor. In my opinion, Searsport should not be asked to risk its safety at risk again unless the reason is equally compelling.
Charlene Knox Farris
Searsport
David, the Republicans in Congress also won their elections 6 weeks ago. They have a responsibility to their constituents to vote for smaller fed government, low taxes, and developing a responsible budget.
While I agree in principal with your intentions, I feel you’re being suckered by the republican party… they no more care for smaller fed government, lower taxes for a majority of citizens, nor developing a smaller budget than the democrats. The Bush administration should have taught us all a valuable lesson in being suckered.
I happen to be one of many people who helped shape the Republican party platform in a small way. My job now is to hold the feet of party members in political office to the fire. To say I’ve been suckered by the party is not really accurate, to say the least.
And you are antithesis to “small fed government”.
Fairly put. I am still an R, but my eyes are wide open. I don’t like the direction my Party has taken, and I tell its leadership about it.
You are one of the many people who is marginalizing the Republican party, doubling down on social conservatism and xenophobic rhetoric, which scares the hell out of mainstream Americans (as it should).
I wish the GOP would stand up to the moralist ideologues who are responsible for our increasing losses at the polls. We need a Republican party that stands for fiscal conservatism, individual freedom and small government.
Would that be the same Republican platform that the majority of voters in Maine and across this great Nation dealt a crushing defeat to on November 6th?
What you want is for the Republicans to give up their shared values. For that matter, why not apply the same standard to Democrats? Look, we have different branches of government for a good reason. The natural tension between the branches is healthy as long as it doesn’t devolve into uncivilly.
I am a Republican and have been since 1967. Today’s Party isn’t the same party I joined back then. Today’s Republican Party would call Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan a RINO the same way they called Olympia Snowe a RINO and were planning to defeat her in the primary. She could have won the general election in a heart beat, but she wasn’t pure enough for today’s Party which is controlled by the radical right. This attitude of everyone is wrong except me is for the birds and is destined to keep Republicans on the losing side of elections until it changes. That is why Angus King is the Senator elect. Just because someone doesn’t subscribe to one narrow ideology doesn’t mean they are a bad person, but to those who are in control of the Party today it does. Maine has a new chairman of the Party and despite getting clobbered on November 6th he feels that the message that the Maine Republican Party has which is the same one the Party has had for at least two years is what the people of Maine want. If they wanted it so bad why did the blood bath of November 6th take place?
I am very comfortable with the party I am with, and it is not the Republican party.
I heard you had joined the Christmas Party.
Yes, that must be it.
Hey I want you to know I am all for your candidate. You know the fat one with the red outfit, beard and reindeer. I am sure Whawell would be against him though. Seems he delivers joy , happiness and gifts to kids all over the world every year. The radical right would call that an entitlement program if ever there was one.
But don’t even the sourpusses like jolly old St Nick?
I sometimes wonder if they even like themselves.
Very astute of you.
And that would be the platform that denies abortion to women who are pregnant because of rape or incest because that’s just god’s way of starting a blessed new life. I’d say you had definitely been suckered.
To add to your comment I might add that David Betts omitted to mention the existence of three governing branches in our form of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. These branches have designated powers by which they govern. The Democrat Party will retain charge of the executive branch that includes the office of the President. And the Republicans kept their majority in the US House. So you are absolutely right in pointing out that the Republicans in the House “won their elections 6 weeks ago”. Also, contrary to what David Betts asserts, the Republicans’ agenda for the country was not “rejected by majority rule six weeks ago.” It’s more accurate to say the election gave the politicians mixed signals.
Actually if you look at the total House vote, Democrats had more votes than Republicans did. The fact that Republicans remained in the majority (they did lose many seats though) just proves that they have the majority because of gerrymandering and not because their “won their election.”
Slaughtered in the electoral college, defeated by a strong majority in the actual vote for President, lost seats in the Senate, Lost Seats in the House and in Maine it was nothing short of a massacre in both the House and Senate races and it supposedly sent mixed signals. Using that logic Custer almost won at Little Big Horn.
Some people have difficulties with reality.
An electoral “slaughter” means very little. The winner could theoretically pitch a shutout while receiving only 50 more votes than the loser, nationwide. And 51-48 is hardly a “strong majority.” Whawell is completely right – mixed signals.
Whawell is wrong. Democrats got the majority of votes in for the Presidency, the Senate AND the House. There were no mixed signals, except by people who spin and distort the truth like you.
332-206 sounds like a slaughter to me. Are you the one who told Custer they were friendly Indians?
Funny.
They’ll ALL about state’s rights and all about saying we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic, but then they’re the first ones to only talk about the popular vote because it somehow minimizes their massive defeat.
These are examples of electoral vote landslides.
James Monroe’s 231 electoral votes to John Quincy Adams’s 1 electoral vote in 1820. (99.2% margin)
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 523 electoral votes to Alf Landon’s 8 electoral votes in 1936. (97% margin)
Ronald Reagan’s 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale’s 13 electoral votes in 1984. (95.2% margin)
Richard Nixon’s 520 electoral votes to George McGovern’s 17 electoral votes and John Hospers’s 1 in 1972. (93.3% margin)
These are examples of popular vote landslides.
26.2% : Warren Harding’s 60.3% to James M. Cox’s 34.1% in the 1920 presidential election
25.2% : Calvin Coolidge’s 54.0% to John W. Davis’s 28.8% in the 1924 presidential election
24.3% : Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 60.8% to Alf Landon’s 36.5% in the 1936 presidential election
23.2% : Richard Nixon’s 60.7% to George McGovern’s 37.5% in the 1972 presidential election
22.6% : Lyndon Johnson’s 61.1% to Barry Goldwater’s 38.5% in the 1964 presidential election.
In neither of those categories can you find an Obama “landslide”.
Even without gerrymandering, which you accused the Republicans of doing, the outcome would likely not have changed the Republican margin in the House that is quite substantially in their favor.
No, that’s factually untrue. If you add up the total amount of House votes, Democrats had over half a million more than Republicans did. Your claim “outcome would likely not have changed the Republican margin in the House that is quite substantially in their favor.” is untrue. You’re either ignorant or lying.
They have gerrymandering to thank for many of those wins. They knew they had to do that to win much of anything these days.
Yes they won, but that is not surprising considering that 98% of the time the person running gets reelected. What is telling is that they lost seats, there was no doubt they would retain the house, but they did lose seats.
Ackely, they are in the media because that is where they want to be. They can’t leave anything alone, They must get poke their head into peoples business. Look at Gay Marriage, didn’t effect them one bit. It had nothing to do with them at all, but they sure as heck fought it. People don’t make fun of them because they are mean, they make fun because Christians keep poking their head in place they do not belong.
The welfare of children is everyone’s business. So-called “gay marriage” puts that welfare on the line. It’s important society ensures children have a mom and a dad as much as is reasonably possible. That’s why people like myself oppose state endorsement of same-sex relationships. Yes, indeed it our business, Christian or not Christian. Like it or not, the issue is far from over.
care about children? Yes, because you Christians are doing a great job of helping out children today, Please why don’t you try and figure out a way to feed starving children and help children that are in broken homes first before you start to care about a couple of gay dudes wanting to show a child love and compassion. Oh yes, its better for a child to be in no family then it is for a child to be in a gay family. Please.
Careful… practical ideas make whawell angry.
You conveniently changed the subject and went on the attack.
The suggestion Christians bear responsibility for the neglect of starving children and children in broken homes has nothing to do with their need of a mom and a dad. Furthermore, children do not face the prospect of having no families. Orphanages in this country are a thing of the past. Let’s hope and pray it remains that way.
Are you saying that foster homes are “families”?
Really?
Wow…
I’ve been in foster homes before, Yes, I’d say they are families. Incidentally, you are not confusing foster homes with orphanages, are you? Of course not every set of foster parents can afford to adopt the children in their care even though in many cases they would like to do so.
You don’t care one bit about the welfare of children… it’s just a mask for your dislike of gay people… an excuse to scream bigotry at the top of your lungs while trying to seem “caring”.
You sweep the realities of many foster homes under the rug… Not all foster homes, of course, but if you deny that there are problems in that system, it’s just more proof that you’re using children as a mask for your dislike of gay folks. If the welfare of the child were of real concern, you’d not be putting them in homes that can’t support them on their own. It’s a sham, and you know it.
You sweep the realities of divorce under the rug… without even trying to make a case against it, or offer solutions against it. Another items showing your true intentions.
You lie and try to connect marriage to adoption… neither is required for the other.
You lie and try to connect marriage to procreation… neither is required for the other.
In my personal opinion, you are vile… you hold children up as a shield in an attempt to try and hide your true feelings and beliefs.
You don’t like gay marriage… so you use children as your excuse and mask. You’re pathetic.
Could not agree more. Whawell is coming from a very ugly place.
Actually no I did not. You brought up the welfare of children. I am sorry but a child not having food, is part of the welfare of the child. You don’t bear responsibility to feed the child, but you don’t also bear responsibility to make sure the child has a mom and a dad, but you take it. Yes, Children do face that prospect because not every child is in a home, lots are in foster family and get bounced around. Yes that is great for the welfare of a child, let them bounce home to home instead of living with the gays.
Well said!
Given the choice between a loving mom and dad, and a loving gay couple, children are generally better off with the former. Maine and Massachusetts however do not allow adoption agencies in their respective states to make such a justified distinction.
But what makes you think children will not get bounced around with gay marriage and adoption permitted? It’s happening in Massachusetts where both gay marriage and gay adoption have been permitted for several years. The main reason foster children get bounced around is that they are not in many instances readily amenable to a structured home environment on account of their past. Simply placing them in a home with gay parents will not help.
There is evidence that doesn’t support that claim but actually contradicts it. .Children will be bounced around whether or not gay adoption is allow, but it will be less. No one is saying they should just simple placed in homes with gay parents, but being gay should not be the only reason they can not adopt. Its simple stupid to refuse based on a couple being gay, how does that help the child? Sorry, no home for you because we don’t want you living with the gays.
“Sorry, no home for you because we don’t want you living with the gays.” Why are you attacking my character? What have I done to deserve such treatment except present my views without resorting to personal attacks? Incidentally, have you read for yourself the Regnerus report? Or are you simply repeating what others may have said about it? If you ask me, I can vouch that I’ve read the report itself.
I have not attacked your character. where was the character attack in my post? I am simple re stating the position you have made clear you support. You presented your view, but contradict yourself greatly, you say you are only thinking about the welfare of the children, but then support a position that is not in the best interest of the children. You are talking yourself in circles.
Whawell is trying to derail the conversation in order to not be accountable for the lies/misinformation he/she is spreading.
Your lack of character is clear from your posts.
A mom and dad? That guarantees nothing. It is the love and attention and quality of parenting that is important. There are many who would have preferred two loving and good gay parents than what they were born into. You don’t have a clue.
A mom and dad, and the love between them is important. I’ve never implied otherwise. While children are not always born to loving parents, this does not preclude them from having a substitute mom and dad who love them. The choice you seem to lay out between either a bad set of parents or good gay parents doesn’t exist since there are sufficient loving mom-and-dad couples willing to act as foster or adoptive parents.
” there are sufficient loving mom-and-dad couples willing to act as foster or adoptive parents.”
Maybe in your made up world but not in Maine.
Wow, you really do live in some fantasy world bubble if you think that the foster care system has sufficient resources for placement of children.
Divorce puts it on the line… you do not decry it.
Single parenthood puts it on the line… you do not decry it.
Catholic Charities goes out of its way to keep children in foster homes… yet you do not decry it.
You are one of the greatest hypocrites I’ve ever had the displeasure of encountering anywhere. You pick out a group that gets your “ick factor” all riled up, and ignore far more egregious harm that is done to children by the likes of Catholic Charities…
Keep fighting it… this last election is a good demonstration of what you will have in your future should you do so, not to mention DOMA’s upcoming death.
One wonders what you’ll do then.
Divorce puts what on the line? Yes, it undermines the family. That’s why I urge married couples to pay close attention to their relationships.
Furthermore, Catholic Charities does not go out of its way to keep children in foster homes. It does just the opposite. This organization exists in part for that very purpose. My, my.
You call me hypocrite, yet you offer no sound basis for that allegation, and besides, you break the rules for posting by being uncivil.
As to the future, like everyone else I can only do my small part in helping to determine its outcome. You may disagree with me all you want, but don’t forget, you have no power over me.
“that welfare”… that would be, the welfare of children. You speak against NOTHING harming children… you ONLY harp on gay marriage.
Furthermore, Catholic Charities have abandoned every child in a foster home in MA (with more states to come), AFTER following state law for 16 years. My, my… you don’t pay attention to your own kind much, do you?
No sound basis?
1. Screaming that marriage is about kids… while not decrying straight people in childless marriages.
2. Claiming to be out for “the welfare” of children, while cherry-picking the things you are and aren’t against (all the while, ignoring “the welfare” of the children you claim to be for).
I am being civil. Everything I have stated about you is a fact… and all it takes to see it is the ability to read.
And you, dearie, have no power over me, no matter how badly you wish to see me and mine harmed.
Calling me a hypocrite, isn’t that name calling? Tell me, why are you calling me a hypocrite while you yourself are acting like one? If you can’t understand that, then you have no place in civil discourse.
Incidentally, Catholics Charities throughout the US is not abandoning its adoption agencies, unless it is being forced to by the state. In the Massachusetts case, Catholic Charities there was in violation of church law. When that was pointed out, the organization had no choice but to close down its operation. I’m glad it closed it down because some of the workers there knew they were violating church law.
The state is not forcing them to do anything. They are choosing to leave. I am sorry but if its against church law to help a child find a loving home then what is the point of the church?
If someone tells you to do something against your conscience or else suffer consequences, you are in effect being forced, compelled, or coerced. That is what is happening in those areas where Catholic Charities adoption agencies are being forced by rule of law to permit gays to adopt. With no option but to either violate their conscience or break the law they must close down their adoption agencies in order to keep a clear conscience and be on the level with the law.
Maybe if you have to be ‘coerced’ against your conscience to obey a reasonable law it might be time to consider reviewing your ethical priorities. Religion doesn’t trump science or the law.
Discrimination is against the law though, so yes, we should be coercing people not to discriminate. You don’t get to harm children simply because you don’t like gays and that’s exactly what happens when discrimination is allowed. Just like in the past when integrated schools were against the “conscience” of many. Get out of the business if you don’t want to violate your conscience.
Catholic Charities DID… for 16 bloody years!
When gay marriage came along, they CHOSE to harm children in the name of their political battle against all things gay.
They were fine with “violating their conscience” when abandoning it would have made no impact… and when it could make an impact, they chose that impact over helping children.
They’re scum.
Horse pucky… they placed children into gay homes for 16 years…
Then pitched a political hissy-fit when gay marriage was made legal in MA and decided it was more important to make a political statement than help children.
If one behaves in a schizoid manner it is not unreasonable to say the person is a schizophrenic. If one behaves like a hypocrite it is not unreasonable to call them a hypocrite.
I don’t want to get too picky here, but it’s my impression that the Catholic Church is pretty much a scoff law when it suits their purposes to do so.
And don’t forget….you have absolutely no power or control over most people. In fact, very few I would suspect, which is a good thing.
You and other posters have been trying to get me off the air through the use of ridicule, name-calling, false accusations, false pretenses, putdowns like the one you just aired, and other means simply to discourage me from airing my views. This objective to get rid of the opposition has apparently worked with many posters. I don’t give up so easily, however, you should know by now. That’s why i said, “you have no power over me”. Don’t forget, as a veteran I served this country so that you and others who holds similar views could express their views without being ostracized. But now I see not everyone appreciates the God-given freedom of expression for everyone like other people including myself.
You sure have an inflated opinion of yourself. No one is trying to run you off. And how presumptious you are about other posters’ situations……you don’t know which of us served, or were military spouses etc.
Tell me, why then are so many posters violating the rules of civil conduct for posting if it is not to drive out others with opposing views? Three or four years ago this venue had as many posters with my views on gay marriage as posters who supported gay marriage. Most of the former posters are no longer to be found. Now tell me honestly if this is just a coincident.
oh my goodness. Not everyone posts forever. I recall many anti gay posters who were quite nasty, goading each other on and oh so sure it would not pass . Odd you did not see that.
If gay marriage had not passed more of those people would still be posting. They are not happy that it did not go their way and see how more and more people are in support of it. It is easy to see.
It is not what you are reading into it. They could give it out before and I am sure still would if they chose to post.
and I am sure you have forgotten all the nasty, vicious posts from this past election and in 2009 by the SSM side.
Why do you think it’s fair to bash gays on here and then scream that you’re a victim when someone says something you don’t like? Why do you think you’re so much better that YOU don’t have to follow the rules?
I stick by the rules for posting. I don’t bash people, including gays. When I criticize I attack what people do or say, not who they are. This distinction is important to bear in mind when posting. Therefore I don’t call people bigots just because they may have made a bigoted remark. Maybe you can learn something from this. So far you have not been able to cite any past example from any of my posts, for instance, where I actually put down posters or call them names, except when I call them out for being obnoxious.
Oh, one more thing: what makes you think I scream? Are you spying on me with an audio/video camera while I am posting? Also, what difference does it make to you if I think myself better than others?
You’re not honest. You attack gays and lie and say they endanger the welfare of children. That’s attacking them for precisely who they are.
I have cited examples time and time again. Other posts have as well and you ignore it. Instead of you choose to reply to posts where you can play the victim. You’re not an honest person. You yourself have not been able to cite REAL sources to back up your claims. You’re guilty of all that you criticize others of and more.
You’ll do anything to change the subject and divert attention from real issues. You are bashing gays on here and it’s right there for all to read.
It also seems to be a backhanded slap at the hetero men who somehow “create” gay men.
Couching your malevolent pious views in polite verbiage does not make them less malevolent. Your engagement on the gay issue for months on these threads is obsessive. You are no victim.
Maybe the other anti gay posters looked deep into their hearts and found that they were wrong. Maybe they figured out that they should have the decency to quit hammering everyone about their bigotry. Maybe their beloved aunt came out and they realized that homosexuals were loving, interesting, human beings not the devils from hell that their church had been telling them.
Excellent response. Very true.
I think the steam went out of some of the rabid anti gay posters here.
I am not implying in any way homosexuals are not capable of love or being interesting. In fact I have two relatives who are homosexuals. We correspond now and then, and even had a huge family gathering this summer where both participated with delight. That said, this does not deter me from believing homosexual orientation is an acquired disposition. It’s obvious to us in the clan that both of our homosexual relatives who were emotionally abused as youngsters failed to identify appropriately with their own dads and any other appropriate father figure not sufficiently present in their own lives to have a lasting impact.
Oh, good. More junk “science”.
“acquired disposition”
So is religion… making your entire argument moot.
The Catholic church does not call anyone devils. The SSM side pure dislike for The Church is so apparent. I think the saying is love the sinner, not the sin. Which goes for more sins than just homosexuality.
Perhaps their paychecks stopped coming in from NOM?
Keep posting. I don’t agree with everything you say…. but don’t give in to these that would indeed run you off.
I have been told rather bluntly by another poster here that this was a liberal site and I was not welcome. They have hassled me under one name or another for nearly 5 years. I’ve got news for them as well as a middle digit. I am not going anywhere.
You state your views, others disagree. How is that a ‘power’ over you.
keep on speaking out whawell!! There are many on your side, and trolls who have nothing better to do than post their nasty little snippets will be busy.
“Small” is an accurate characterazation.
So it’s better to have children in a home where they have little love but two opposite-gender parents than to have them in a home full of support and love but two same-gender parents?
You are obviously restricting the choices between a bad home environment or a home with same-sex parents. It’s not an either/or situation where if a home is not suitable then the only choice is one with a gay couple. That is not true.
I didn’t say it was the only alternative. I was asking if you felt an unsupportive home with a man and a woman as parents was, while not the best situation, still better than a supportive home with gay parents.
To answer your question, common sense dictates any supportive home is better than one that is not supportive. But when children must be taken from an unsupportive home, they should be placed as a matter of policy in a supportive home with a mom and a dad.
Why?
Public policy cannot be based on personal stories or anecdotal evidence. It must be based on common sense combined with sound statistical evidence where and when available. As I’ve explained before, children tend to do better in a mom-and-dad setting.
Your statement is incorrect. According to studies, children tend to do better in two parent homes. None of those studies designates what gender the two parents should be.
Dislike homosexuals if you want. Vote against SSM if it suits your narrow belief system. Post tirades against same sex parenting and adoption if you wish. But, fergodsake don’t try to hide your bigotry behind “facts” that in reality are simply your and your Church’s opinions.
Then stop divorce.
Stop childbirth out of wedlock.
They do far more harm than gay marriage, which is really what this is about, isn’t it?
You don’t get to make claims like that when you don’t have the facts to back you up. You can say it’s your opinion, but that’s all you have. The facts are that gay parents are just as effective at raising children as straight parents. That’s fact.
That poster has never been strong on facts and evidence.
You’re wrong again. A recent study by Professor Regnerus seems to confirm my claim. Furthermore, this study doesn’t even take into account the problem of gender identity that is more commonplace in children with gay parents. I might add it’s no accident that nature has designed the sexes to benefit children. For that reason a lesbian can never fully replace a good dad and a male homosexual can never replace the love of a mom. With that I rest my case for having facts to back my assertions.
Now tell me, what facts do you have to establish that gay parents in general are just as good as straight parents?
Professor Regnerus??? Can just imagine. How impressive.
You stated the following concerning me: “That poster has never been strong on facts and evidence.” No, I don’t make them up and I do indeed offer evidence as you can see from my previous reply to you. Now it’s your turn to show me facts and evidence.
You perhaps don’t make up “facts” but you most certainly do quote people and fake studies that make up facts. The Regnerus study is one such study. And you quote what your Bible and church have told you are “facts” when they are not. You need to be more discerning about your sources of information.
And yet those studies didn’t hold up in court during the Prop 8 case. Even the anti-gay marriage side’s witnesses admitted that gays make effective parents.
You’re not honest. You’re only looking for the information you want to hear that affirms your disdain against gays.
It all doesn’t matter though, your mindset is quickly becoming a thing of the past — like with racism and sexism.
“Regnerus’ study was not about parents who openly identify as gay or lesbian. It was not about same-sex couples in long-term relationships raising children together. Regnerus even admits “this is not about saying gay or lesbian parents are inherently bad,” because he knows has no foundation on which to make such a claim. This was a study about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country. In others words, the study’s results have zero implication for conversations in 2012 about out, committed same-sex couples who are already raising children.
Focus on the Family may be invested in the fraudulent portrayal of Regnerus’s study, but by conducting this interview to draw more attention to it, the anti-gay organization managed to prove that the research has no applicability to the marriage equality and same-sex adoption debates to which it has been applied.”
(from ThinkProgress)
You mean this study by Mark Regnarus? If I were you I wouldn’t even try to act like this is a legitimate study about SSM parenting.
Let me be brief so you understand me more clearly, I’ve never asserted gay parents are inherently bad because, like Mr. Regnerus himself, I don’t believe they inherently are so. If I were you I would refer to the Regnerus report itself rather than relying on what others say about it. This way you can actually comment about the report itself from first-hand impressions.
Then what’s your point? How can you say they’re not inherently bad, but at the same time say they’re all ineffective parents and aren’t good for the welfare of a child? You’re trying to have it both ways.
Also — quit being dishonest. People have responded DIRECTLY to and about the study you’re referring to and you’re ignoring it. Why don’t you respond directly to the numerous studies that do indicate that gays make effective parents? Why don’t you hold yourself to the same standard that you hold others to? You seem to be much easier on yourself — that’s hypocrisy.
Garbage.
None need be married to adopt a child… you’re using this as an excuse in your personal war against gay marriage.
It’s obvious that you only care for children as a shield to hold up and use in your war against gay marriage.
You must also be watching way too much Fox News.
The fact that we now allow same-sex households to have access to civil marriage is absolutely not denying a single child a home life with a mom and dad.
Seriously, do you think that there is some woman out there married to a man, raising a child, who is now going to divorce so she can gay marry someone? Or that the opposite is true, anywhere??
The fact is that civil marriage equality helps protect the welfare of more children, children who otherwise are growing up in households that had a legal status of “single parent”.
Allowing more children to grow up in two-parent households, where parents are legally married, is a good thing in Maine.
Here in Maine, the court system has forced adoption agencies to accept adoption by gays. The court focused on the rights of gays rather than the rights of children, a departure from the past when the interests of children were placed before that of adults. It’s was an unconscionable decision, one that needs to be changed because children do not exist for the pleasure of adults. What is happening now is that gays are adopting children, thus denying them of the right to a mom and a dad. Same-sex marriage only will make it more difficult to overturn this court decision.
It’s a sad fact that moms and dads divorce. Forcing them to remain together is not a solution as some posters here have proposed since this arrangement of forced spousal relationships – keep in mind mutual love must be freely given and received in order to exist – would not likely be in the best interest of children. Women who divorce and subsequently partner with a lesbian are of course bisexual. The choice of partner in such a case is an unfortunate one when children are involved. Her action certainly does not help protect the welfare of her children. In todays society there is a stigma attached to same-sex relationships, and rightfully so, since it helps to ensure children end up having a mom and a dad. Gay marriage can only relax this stigma. Not a good thing, that is, for children.
Correction– the court system has allowed adoption agencies to accept adoption by gays. No one forces adoption agencies to place children with particular households, that is their decision.
But you’d rather see children shuffled through the foster care system than have a permanent home with loving parents… how can you claim to have their interests at heart when you only seek to use them as pawns in your obsessive distain for gays and lesbians?
Your accusation “you’d rather see children shuffled through the foster care system than have a permanent home with loving parents” is utterly false and without any foundation whatsoever. Besides, there are many good foster homes in place whenever there is no loving couple immediately available for adoption.
“Besides, there are many good foster homes in place whenever there is no loving couple immediately available for adoption.”
What planet are you on. Practically every state in the country has a shortage of foster homes. I volunteer for the Guardian Ad Litem program during the 5 months of the year I spend in Florida and have seen the statistics. Plus most couples want to adopt babies not older children. Once a kid gets beyond the age of three placing them for adoption is extremely difficult. You need to learn what you are talking about before you go spouting off as if you were an expert on the subject.
You assert I don’t know what I am talking about. Well, maybe so. Yet nothing you have offered tells me you know anything about adoption that I have missed. With that, tell me, how many orphanages are there in the US? And even if you find one, tell me how “gay marriage and adoption” is a solution to the lack of available parents. Frankly, it is not a solution to the problem of the high rate of broken families, the principal cause of children in foster homes.
Do you know what a Guardian Ad Litem does? We are appointed by the court. Our primary function is to represent the interest of children that are placed in State custody because of abuse of varying types. We also act as the childs representative in the adoption process. As far as orphanages I believe there are slightly less then 200 in the US, If you want to know the exact number check google I am sure they can tell you. Your whole “its about the kids” thing is nothing but a red herring and most everyone on this board knows it. Prior to the vote on same sex marriage you had all kinds of reasons to be against it. You lost accept it.
I am glad to see you have reconsidered your earlier claims. Adoption agencies aren’t being forced to place children in same-sex families, and indeed it is benefitical for those children to be in permanent homes with loving parents, including same-sex families.
Or are you a hypocrite, upset that I am pointing out how your attitude harms children, but still wanting to hold such a harmful attitude?
Have you noticed that everyone seems to be wrong except you?
Oh there you go again….making sense….
I try but I don’t think Whawell would agree with you on that
You’re dishonest. There is a stigma attached to liars and rightfully so.
Now, now, calm down. No need to get personal. Did anybody remind you of the pledge you signed when you first registered as a Disqus poster? You pledged to abide by the rules for posting. But now you are violating them. Is this not dishonesty? For your convenience they are found in simplified form at the heading of this posting area for review.
Why do you think you can bash gays and then scream victim when someone calls you out on your lies? That’s hypocrisy.
Whawell, you need a hobby ………… other than worrying about SSM.
Oh you wish the opposition would go away! I understand, I feel the same way too.
That’s odd because I don’t have ANY friends or relatives I keep in touch with that are homophobic….or who are racist or misogynistic or xenophobes or bigoted, etc, etc, etc……I do not have those types of narrow minded and uneducated people in my life…period.
I have no respect or use for them. Want to be bigoted and inane about subjects you clearly have no understanding of ? Excellent !! Every time you write something it is increasingly clear all the knowledge and information that you lack and refuse to comprehend. The only thing you like to make clear about yourself is that you’re straight and white…..and if that’s all you have to be proud about….that’s nothing. Try again.
So what do you propose to do about those good hetrosexual christians that divorce and the subsequent single parenting. Solve your own “christian” marital problems before you start attacking someone else. Especially when those someone else-s don’t appear to have parenting problems.
Anyone who would advocate for a foster situation over two loving gay people who would give a child a wonderful home and upbringing has to have a screw loose or something.
Exactly. Thank you for making that very much needed comment!
You sound like a busybody. Far from over? Maybe not but heading to become legal nationwide. Anyone can see the growing acceptance and support for gay marriage. You may have to find another crusade before long.
Legal or not nationwide, this situation doesn’t make “gay marriage” right and proper, especially for children.
Oh now it is about right and proper? And I suppose you will be the one to decide what is right and proper.
Ah, there’s the real objection. LOL It isn’t that you care about children having a male and female parent it’s that you object to the what you call the impropriety and wrongness of gay marriage.
I expect you object because your god has told you it is wrong. Let me quote Ann Lamott who noted very astutely that: “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
You finally see it, huh?
She doesn’t give a rat’s hind end about kids, but she sure loves to use them as a mask to cover her true bigoted views of gay marriage. It’s all just ick-factor and mythology driven angst. Nothing more.
Gay marriage is not right and proper because it is not in children’s best interest. I’ve discussed my reason for this in one of the posts appearing on this opinion page.
Speaking of hatred, I bear none towards you any other poster, even though I find some posters annoying from time to time with their obnoxious posting behavior. If they would only stick to the rules for posting! One important rule of thumb to keep in mind when posting is to attack the content of a post rather then the poster. The latter is called “a personal attack”, which is uncalled for in civil discourse.
You cannot present your opinion as fact. Gay people do not endanger the welfare of children. Gay people ARE effective parents. Period. Those are the facts. What you’re spouting, your character attacks on gays, are your opinions. Nothing more.
That is incorrect though. It is right and proper to treat Americans equally under our laws, and that includes the laws around civil marriage. It is right and proper to allow children to be brought up in two parent households when those are available, regardless of whether they are same-sex households or the traditional nuclear family households.
Your opposition toward same-sex parenting does more harm than good to children— you must realize that, don’t you? These families exist, we should grant the parents the full wealth of benefits associated with civil marriage, so they may better protect the children they are raising together anyway.
Children are not a requirement for marriage… marriage is not a requirement for children.
Keep holding those kids up as a shield little lady… you’re far more an ally for my side than yours.
That is an awesome quote from author Ann Lamott.
I think we can all agree that child marriage is wrong, no matter if it’s traditional or same-sex marriage.
The fact that we have no national age of consent for marriage is just one more indicator of how hypocritical the “Defense of Marriage Act” is by singling out gays and lesbians for federal restrictions.
In a perfect world where the divorce rate isn’t above 50 percent your view might be correct. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. My wife , when she was younger, spent over ten years working in child protection. The stories of abuse that was inflicted upon little kids by moms and dads were horrible. Everything from sexual abuse to cigarette burns to severe whippings. It makes no difference what the sexual preferrence of a couple is. What makes a difference is love. It makes no matter if it is a homosexual or straight couple as long as the child is loved and cared for. You are trying to justify your flawed ideology by claiming “gay marriage” somehow puts kids at risk. It isn’t true. Study after study has proven you wrong. Kids need love and stability in their lives and it doesn’t matter if it is provide by a mom and a dad, a mom and a mom or two dads.
You are partially right when you say kids need love and stability. But you neglect to mention their need for a mom and a dad. I’ve already explained in a prior post found on this opinion page how “gay marriage” puts kids at a disadvantage. No use repeating myself.
You are incorrect. Study after study, that did not differentiate between male and female parents, or SS parents, say simply that a two parent family works to the advantage of children. You will not be able to find a well documented and scientific research study that shows the parents must be male and female in order to provide a loving home.
The Regnerus study shows children fare better with a mom and a dad than they do with either two moms or two dads. So far there is no other study that even comes close to this one in terms of sampling size. If you are not persuaded by this, then just look to nature and the biological, physical, and emotional differences between the sexes. Those differences are not merely accidents of nature. They exists because they help promote the human species.
No, you are completely wrong, Whawell. Mark Regnerus study was, ” about unstable couples, possibly in sham marriages, who may have dabbled in same-sex relationships outside of their original marriage at a time when there was no recognition for same-sex couples anywhere in the country.”
You are getting your information about Regnerus’ study from Focus on the Family, based in Colorado Springs , CO. They are pushing this study hard as conclusive evidence that children parented by gay couples are damaged.
Focus on the Family is a homophobic, right wing, patriarchal, political propaganda machine masquarading as a religious organization.
Gosh, sounds like the perfect organization for whawell.
Incorrect. The study shows children fare better with two parents than they do with one.
The study was never intended to pass judgement on same-sex households. Attempting to do so reflects your prejudice, because the study itself was not structured to make any conclusion on same-sex parenting.
This post of yours is a clear example of your dishonesty and your hypocrisy. I have previously provided you with documentation to the contrary and still you persist.
This post is even more evidence of your obsession.
The Regnerus study was paid for by people with an agenda, has been discredited by every professional association with means to say so, and has been called misrepresented by the man who did the study.
Keep using it in your campaign of deception and harm… it won’t help you.
The species is just fine, thanks… and won’t suffer a bit now that gay folks are getting married, primarily because there is no procreation requirement in marriage, nor a marriage requirement in procreation.
It is not gay parents and their children who are at a disadvantage, but would not say the same for that poster.
Seriously? Ummmm what about the 450,000 kids in foster care in this country ? Think they came from ‘gay’ anything ? Do you care about all THOSE kids who came from heterosexual parents ? Of course you don’t- clearly ‘gay marriage’ is the cause of almost half a million kids being thrown into foster care…not because of inane heterosexual couples who have no business having children or the ability to take care of said children……..so much for ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ LOL. Now go back to reading your bible and polishing your AK-47. The only thing you lack is a white sheet to wear with a hood. Try again.
E. Barroud, D. Betts: good letters.
Mr, Ackley: Respect is a two way street. Before you start whining about the lack of respect for the beliefs of politically and socially conservative Christian churches, you should take a very close look at whether they are respectful of anything outside their very narrow and disrespectful interpretation of what is acceptable modern society.
No religious group that scorns science, women, gays, education, history, other cultures and other religions is worthy of respect.
Perfect
David Betts, Obviously by not voting for Democratic Congresspeople and giving the Republicans a large majority in Congress…. you are incorrect. The people have voted for a divided government. Unfortunately for you Boehner is doing what he was elected to do.
Total House votes show that Democrats got nearly a million more votes than Republicans did. Republicans maintained their majority as result of gerrymandering. Nice try at a spin though, both of you.
The Democratic districts are just as gerrymandered as Republican ones. Only an ignoramus would say otherwise. The fact that Democrats are clustered in just a few heavily populated areas accounts for the discrepancy. 95% African American voting districts outside Cleveland is just one example.
Irrelevant. Your point was “The people have voted for a divided government” and that’s untrue. The majority, nearly a million more votes for Democrats over Republicans in the House, was simply not enough to overcome Republican gerrymandering. Your claim that “the people” chose a split is untrue.
By electing Republican Congresspeople they have voted for a divided government. It is a stupid thing to say that because they voted for Republican Congresspeople they were really voting for Democrats. That’s just plain stupid.
It’s stupid, but I didn’t say that. Read my comment again and maybe you’ll understand it.
The majority of voters, “the people”, did vote for House Democrats, but as result of gerrymandering, their votes weren’t enough to overcome a Republican majority. How else do you explain the total amount of votes, nearly a million more, going to Democrats and yet them not being in the majority? How do you explain that away?
Explained above. Ok I suppose if you took a hundred thousand African American voters from Cuyahoga county in Ohio and another couple hundred thousand Democrat voters from New York and New Jersey you could come up with an voter majority in any number of Republican won Congressional districts through out the west and south. Unfortunately for you the system of our Republic doesn’t work that way. I understand that you believe we are some kind of Democratic Republic but we are not. This is prime example of this. The people in those districts voted for divided government.
I know the fact that we live in a Republic is kind of a stick in the eye for you isn’t it? Too bad.
Can you answer the question directly? Districts are allotted to states proportionally, so how do you explain away the fact that Democrats as a whole got more total votes than Republicans in the House? Proportionally means that what’s happening on a large scale is going to happen on a small scale as well.
You’re spinning wildly and it’s pathetic. That’s why Republicans lost the election. Lost the Presidency (should have been an easy win, you guys have been screaming that Obama is the worst President omg like ever in history), lost seats in the Senate AND the House. You can’t hoodwink people with lies and distortions. People didn’t vote for a divided government. People didn’t believe “no we love poor people” after the 47% comments. People didn’t believe that Obama was apologizing for America or demonizing success. Just stop with the distortions — no one is buying it. And worse, if you’re doing it just to convince yourself and make yourself feel better? Stop. It’s time to wake up.
You are the one spinning by throwing topics irrelevant to the discussion. Which is what posters with stupid arguments do.
The voters elected Congresspeople in their districts via “proportional representation” elected many Republicans… that’s the way it is. The fact that an African American Democratic Congressman is elected by 95% vote in an African American district does not mean change the the fact that a 8-10 conservative Congresspeople were elected by 51% in some other state. They were all equally elected to Congress. They were all elected by the voters in their districts.
You can convince yourself that Republican Congressional districts were Gerrymandered (You would need a court to decide that… but that is another issue) but In the end there are 234 Republican Congresspeople and 200 Democrat. You are going to have to find a way to live with that.
I never indicated that somehow a 51% win doesn’t count. And I am living with it — I’m just not going to stand by while someone distorts reality because it makes them feel good. And by the way, a 95% win for your opposing party is how gerrymandering works. You stack a couple districts with nearly entirely your opposing party. Let’s say there are 200 Democrats, 102 Republicans and 3 districts. You make a district entirely of 100 Democrats, then two districts of 50 Democrats/51 Republicans. You end up with 2 wins for their 1 win, even though they had more votes than you total. I think you know this, but you gotta keep up that spin.
Anyway, again — please be direct, how else do you explain a total of nearly a million more votes for Democrats other than preferential district lines for Republicans?
ROFLMAO
Well I tell you what… Why don’t you tell about a half million Democrat voters in New York City they are going to have to move to districts in the Midwest just so that all districts become Democratic and things wont be gerrymandered anymore.
Your whole premise is foolish.
It’s not. It’s fact. People did not choose a divided government. That’s typical Republican self-delusion.
Are you really saying that because a half million Democratic voters from New York or California didn’t vote in Republican districts in Arkansas or Oklahoma things were gerrymandered?
That is delusion.
North Carolina for example, House races. Wins with margin of victory:
Democratic seats — Melvin L. Watt 59.3%
G.K. Butterfield 52.5%
David E. Price 48.9%
Mike McIntyre 0.2%
Republican seats — Patrick McHenry 14%
Mark Meadows 14.8%
George E.B. Holding13.6%
Renee Ellmers 14.5%
Walter B. Jones 26.2%
Virginia Foxx 15.1%
Howard Coble 21.8%
Richard Hudson 7.8%
Robert Pittenger 6.1%
The margins of wins for Democrats are MUCH higher, exactly how I outlined in my 200/102 example. So how do you explain that away Cheesecake? Or are you just going to rely on condescending me?
Wolfie cherrypicking.
Whatever, live in your little bubble. I hope all Republicans continue to do so as it will lead continued landslide victories for Democrats.
Look. It’s your example.
North Carolina Is one of the states that comes under the voting rights act of 1965. That means there are rules more specific to drawing up districts there and other southern states than most of the country. They want to insure that a certain number of African -American Congresspeople are elected. How they do that I really don’t know but one can imagine that courts would be all over it if there were illegal disparities.
If you think that its time to bring an end to the voting rights act then you can join the Republicans with that.
The fact is that the election was not a landslide when you are speaking in historical terms. It may make you all warm and fuzzy to think it may have been, but that’s just your “hope” shining through.
Barack Obama was elected by only the 32nd largest Electoral vote margin. Nothing landslide about that. His popular vote margin was by only 3.8%. Good enough for only 35th place in history.
Those numbers are not all that earth shattering and your continued fantasy is just that. Fantasy.
The Voting Rights Act protects minorities — that is an entirely separate issue from preferential lines for districts. Discouraging and burdening a black voter is entirely different issue — obviously.
It was a victory all around and you don’t have the guts to admit it. And either way, whether a small or a large win — you guys screamed up and down that Obama and the Democrats were radicals hellbent on destroying the country and were the worst the country has seen in decades. Yet you still lost. But Democrats are the ones living in a fantasy world? Please.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/other-constitutional-rights/the-voting-rights-act-of-1965-overview.html
The Voting Rights Act (explain above) also helps determine how voting districts in many of the states of the old confederacy are drawn. How they do that I am unsure. But if there was anything wrong the Federal Courts and Eric Holder would have been all over it. I know they used that weapon in Texas while redistricting was going on. Effectively if I recall.
I was addressing your personal fantasy world where Democrats won this fantastic landslide. You guys can’t even do math.
Look, I provided evidence and you’re doing everything in your power to ignore that and change the subject. It’s obvious. Please respond DIRECTLY to the numbers I provided regarding NC. How else do you explain massive wins for just a few Democrats and then slimmer but safe margins for far more Republicans? I know you have your personal attack and your tangents — good for you — but I’d like you to be direct for once.
I did react to your numbers. They are cherry picked from a region effected by the Voting Rights Act to insure African American Congresspeople are elected. How can you point to that as validating your point?
It affirms my 200 Democrats vs. 102 Republicans hypothetical. Notice how those wins in NC for Democrats were massive and for Republicans their wins were by much smaller margins. You could draw the districts so that those wins were more even and Democrats would have gotten double the seats and they wouldn’t have needed a single additional vote. That has been my point all along — America didn’t choose divided government, it was chosen for them through the way in which the districts were drawn. But you want to play naive and say that somehow districts can’t be drawn favorably and this is a concept that is impossible. To quote you, that’s “fantasy.”
Of course districts can be and are redrawn to reflect the party in power. Nothing new here…. but your example is not a good one.
Democratic seats — Melvin L. Watt 59.3%
G.K. Butterfield 52.5%
David E. Price 48.9%
Mike McIntyre 0.2%
Republican seats — Patrick McHenry 14%
Mark Meadows 14.8%
George E.B. Holding13.6%
Renee Ellmers 14.5%
Walter B. Jones 26.2%
Virginia Foxx 15.1%
Howard Coble 21.8%
Richard Hudson 7.8%
Robert Pittenger 6.1%
is a perfect example.
And the gerrymandering was done in 2010 when republicans were in control. Those 10 year elections are important.
For the Ill informed. Gerrymandering is illegal. All of the districts that were in dispute were settled in a court of law. Only a judge can decide if a district has been Gerrymandered. Once they are settled they are settled.