Comments for: Straight marriage is society’s bond with children, and gay marriage doesn’t fit

Posted July 10, 2012, at 2:16 p.m.
Last modified July 10, 2012, at 4:36 p.m.

The Bangor Daily News editorial of July 9 approaches the issue of same-sex marriage from a predictable perspective — the desires of “Lucie and Annie” and “Jim and Steve.” Long an advocate of gay marriage, the paper naturally waxes on about the importance of these adults being able to do …

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Sexual orientation has nothing to do with how good or bad a person is as a parent.  Furthermore, sexual orientation has nothing to do with how you practice your religion, interpret civil rights in America, or a how much you value your own marriage.  In fact, another persons sexual orientation and who they choose to love is NONE OF YOUR GOSH DARN BUSINESS!!!!!!!!  (and I put that as politely as I must to pass muster in the comment section)

    • I have no clue if that is your real name or not but it gave me a good laugh and I agree with you 100%

  • Anonymous

    I agree with everything you have stated, nicely put

    • Guest

      Thanks, I really didn’t put much thought into it.

      • Anonymous

        another good one….you are full of one liners…. hahahahah

    • Anonymous

      A lot of it is lies though.

  • If Emrich were to follow his own logic:

    Children need the love of both their mother and their father. Social science is chock full of data showing that when kids lack either a mother or a father, they suffer.

    The shortcomings of the institution of marriage (divorce, co-habitation, adultery, etc.) are no reason to abandon it. Rather, we should be strengthening marriage by devoting resources — in churches, in schools and in nonprofit agencies and departments of government — to creating a
    thriving marriage culture in our state and nation.

    This piece would argue to outlaw divorce and take children away from single parents.

    • Tyke

      Plus sterile couples could not wed.

      All marriages of post menopausal women would be illegal.

      Civil marriage (all the government has any say in) is a legal contract. Period. That contract says NOTHING about children. Not.One.Thing

    • Anonymous

      That is true.

      Divorce should be outlawed.

      God has already outlawed divorce.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Very well.  You are on the fringe-most people in our free American society don’t believe that.
        Hugs!

  • Anonymous

    The rag known as the  BDN in support of Gays is like The National Enquirer being the author of the Declaration of Independence!

    • Anonymous

      And yet, here you are on the BDN’s web site leaving a comment.   Were you just in a mood to get angry over something and thought this would be the place to accomplish that? Otherwise, why go to a site that you appear to dislike so much?

      • Anonymous

        Er, uh, because his “pastor” isn’t in this week?

    • Guest

      Huh?

    • Anonymous

      Actually the BDN gave space to an individual who is not only against gay marriage but is in favor of passing laws that would put gay people to death. I hardly call that supporting. If anything I would call it fair and balanced by presenting what from the amount of comments posted here would seem to be a rather unpopular article.

  • And here is Emrich in a bald-faced lie:

    The campaign supporting traditional marriage did not argue in 2009, nor are we arguing now, that state law requires that gay marriage be taught in the schools.

    In fact, Stand for Marriage Maine (S4MM), the group that Emrich was part of in 2009, ran several ads in which they argue it’s all about schools.

    Watch here and here.

    S4MM even used Maine teachers in their ads – Charla Bansley and Don Mendell, just as homophobic teachers had been used in California. And it is no wonder – the consultants behind the Prop 8 campaign were the very ones used here in Maine in 2009: Schubert/Flint.

    This piece by Karen Ocamb explains in detail how Schubert/Flint settled on using scare tactics about schools as their only viable argument, paid for for the most part by the Mormon front group National Organization for Marriage (NOM).

    And as this opinion piece from Emrich makes clear, they will be trotting out the same tactics this year.

    • Anonymous

       Truth hurts.

      • Tyke

        It should hurt liars.

    • For those that have some doubt about my claim, I urge you to watch the spokesman for S4MM, Marc Mutty, explain how the campaign worked:

      http://youtu.be/ADqimp6QU2o

  • Emrich writes:

    Marriage wasn’t created by government; it was merely recognized by government.

    Without telling his readers who did create marriage. The reason? Because he knows if he says “God” – by which he means the Christian one – that he opens his argument to attack on religious grounds.

    ::

    The BDN should also make it known to its readers that Emrich is the chair of the Christian Civic League of Maine (CCLM), the lead group opposing the equal marriage ballot question.

  • Guest

    ————

    • ChuckGG

      As my mom was widowed when I was 5 years of age, having the love of one parent was all I got, and I was happy to have it.  Two parents would have been nice, but those were the cards dealt to us.   A gay couple providing love for their kids?  That’s all it takes.

      • Guest

        ////\\

  • Anonymous

    This argument boils down to “We think legal marriage should be only between one man and one woman and feel everyone should follow this” 
    Also “Maine law already provides substantial legal protections for “Lucie and Annie” and “Jim and Steve” except as long as DOMA is a law, LGBT couples will never have equal protection under the law.   

    “Social science is chock full of data showing that when kids lack either a mother or a father, they suffer.”
    False – studies have shown that children do just as well in same sex households as they do in opposite sex households.

    “There are many consequences to society when marriage is redefined”  Such as?  This same argument was used by people against interracial marriage.

    “But we should not redefine marriage simply because of empathy for the desires of same-sex couples.”

    Right, we should ammend the definition of legal marriage to include all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation.

    Overall, there was no legal reason in this agrument against same sex marriage.  Personal opinions a meaningless if there are no facts to back them up.

    • It’s actually more simple than that:

      We think gay sex is icky.

      That’s really all they have.

    • Joseph Willingham

      Sounds like the decision in the Prop 8 trial!

  • Anonymous

    So it’s all about the children is it Bob? Really?? Or is it more about your personal hatred of gays Bob? Bob you claim to be a man of God. A pastor of a Baptist Church. I am sure that you have heard of something called “The Ten Commandments” haven’t you Bob? Perhaps you are familiar with number six  Bob? That’s the one that says, “Thou Shall not Kill”. Sound like something you may have heard before Bob? But in reality you kind of like to overlook that particular Commandment don’t you Bob? I only ask because I happened to come across an article about a trip you took in 2009. You remember that trip don’t you Bob? It was to Uganda wasn’t it Bob? And when you returned to this Country you sent an email to members of your church didn’t you Bob? Do you remember that email Bob? The article did. In fact this is what it says Bob, just in case you need your memory refreshed : ”
    – In 2009, while the debate over the so-called “Kill The Gays Bill” was being debated in Uganda and worldwide, Emrich — who had just returned from the African nation — sent an email to his supporters wherein he pushed an article that praised a “brilliant MP” for coming up “with a Bill against homosexuality.” The referenced bill calls for the death penalty as punishment for being gay.” Oh well so much for the Sixth Commandment eh Bob? Bob just how much hatred do you have to have against a group of people to advocate for their death? Recently the Governor of The State of Maine made reference to “The Gestapo” in his weekly radio address Bob. Perhaps you heard or read about it. They rounded up people who a guy by the name of Hitler didn’t like Bob. They put them on trains and shipped them off to “Death Camps” Bob. Places with names like 
     Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno,Majdanek, Sobibor, and Treblinka. Bob we live in The United States of American and we have a right to say what is on our mind. In fact I put on the uniform of The US Marines when I was a lot younger Bob just to defend those rights. Bob this Country is all about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave. Free people should be allowed to fall in love with whomever they wish Bob. So again, Bob, I ask you. Is it really about the children or is it really about your hatred of people who’s death you have  supported?

    • my my such anger .. talk about  hatred ooohh we..I don’t know .. I don’t think it’s a good idea for gays to suffer the death penalty.. although God thought it was a good idea during the Mosiaic Covenant.. so maybe it’s just something that should be handled by our court systems . don’t ya think so Mr. Marine… ?  Nah.. that just wouldn’t work.. so since our lord and Savior says gay activity is abomination .. let those who believe in that … do so.. and if you want to believe something else ,well, I guess your free to do so.. but if someone decides to teach my kids that this is just fine.. someone is going to make a trip to the dentist…

      • Anonymous

        This bible character that you call “lord and savior”…are you referring to Jesus?  Exactly where in this book does he specifically call homosexuality an abomination?  I’ve read Matt 19:4, but that doesn’t directly address same-sex relations.

        If you’d point out where Christ calls it an abomination, that would be appreciated.  Thanks.

        • Anonymous

          I notice you stopped at verse 4 how convenient. You should of continued one more verse to Matthew 19:5 Where Jesus said “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”
          He specifically defines marriage as between A MAN and a WOMAN”!

          • No where in the Bible does Jesus mention homosexuality. Paul certainly does, and it runs through the Jewish Bible (Old Testament).

          • Anonymous

            “Runs through” the OT is quite a stretch. There’s a mention in Leviticus (and repeated in Deuteronomy, but that’s simple duplication).

            The destruction of Sodom is usually claimed as a condemnation of homosexuality, but it takes deliberately trying to find it there to do so; a more rational reading would show the attempted gang rape of guests to be the immediate problem, and surely only one symptom of a city gone horribly wrong in ways we aren’t told. So, still just at one mention.Then there’s… no, that’s pretty much it. Unless you believe Ruth and Naomi and/or David and Jonathan to be gay couples.

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, and Lot tells the men they can essentially rape his daughters, who are virgins. Not cool, especially for a father to do.

          • Anonymous

            Jesus mentions homosexuality throughout the Bible. 

          • Anonymous

            Actually, I read Matt 4-6…just didn’t carry all the numbers over. I’m not pretending to know the bible, just Googling sections to inform myself, as need be.

            My question specifically addressed a point made by Paul (the poster, not the bible guy), who claimed the “lord and savior” called homosexuality an abomination.  It would seem that Christ never directly addressed homosexuality at all. 

            Fact: many people are attracted to the same gender as themselves and not to the opposite.  From what I understand, Christ does not speak about this reality.  Here in the modern world, we are talking about it.

            How the ancients, through their fears and misunderstandings, regarded homosexuals sadly seems to still exist today.  It shouldn’t.

          • Anonymous

            Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ who was instructed and taught by Christ wrote under the inspiration and revelation of God the following words on homosexuality:
            “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. ”
            (Rom 1:26-27)
            This is as good as Jesus saying them because they were done under inspiration and revelation.
            Paul also wrote:
            “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
            (Gal 1:11-12)

          • Anonymous

            Again, there’s no direct quote from Christ specific to homosexuality.  I appreciate your grasping at straws to make a point, but this isn’t about interpretation or somebody who thinks they speak for someone else. 

            Either Christ is quoted on the topic or he isn’t.  That was my whole point in the first place, in response to Paul’s (the poster) claim.  It would seem that he was incorrect.

          • Anonymous

             Jesus did say:
            “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. ”
            (Joh 8:42-47)
            AND ALSO…
            “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. ”
            (Joh 3:17-20)

          • Anonymous

            Uh-huh.  Ok, still not seeing that direct quote from Christ regarding homosexuality. 

            Again, the attempt on your part is appreciated, but I’m looking for something very specific that apparently doesn’t exist.

            An aside…why the old English?  I understand the times of King James, but aren’t there translations using modern, conversational verbiage?  This certainly isn’t the language of Christ, although to hear some evangelicals speak, you’d think it was.

          • Anonymous

            The New Living Translation is an excellent version of the Bible. It’s in plain English, with footnotes that point out certain verses were not consistently translated.

            The New Living Translation for John 8:42-47 states: “Jesus told them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me. Why can’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to do so! For you are the children of your father the Devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and has always hated the truth. There is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. So when I tell the truth, you just naturally don’t believe me! Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin? And since I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me? Anyone whose Father is God listens gladly to the words of God. Since you don’t, it proves you aren’t God’s children.’

            “The people retorted, ‘You Samaritan devil! Didn’t we say all along that you were possessed by a demon?'”

          • Anonymous

            The problem is not which translation was used, but that no matter what phrasing you prefer it doesn’t address the subject at hand.

          • Anonymous

            I agree. Jesus says nothing about homosexuality in the Bible.

            Emrich and others like him are pickers-and-choosers when it comes to whether the rest of society should adhere to what the Bible says. In 1 Corinthians, Paul says he wishes marriage weren’t necessary, but that if you can’t help yourself and need to have sex, you should get married and have sex with only your spouse. This would actually support gay marriage.

            Paul also says that a husband has “authority” over his wife’s body and that the wife has “authority” over her husband’s body. That indicates accepting rape. And yes, it is rape for anyone to force or coerce anyone else to have sex. Would Emrich and his ilk support legislation that would make it legal to rape your spouse? Probably not.

            Paul also says that a woman who leaves her husband should either remain single for the rest of her life or go back to her husband. Would Emrich and his ilk propose legislation that would require that? Of course not.

            Having just finished reading the Bible from cover to cover, I believe that Jesus would be outright incensed at what Emrich, the Christian Civic League (or whatever it calls itself these days), and Focus On The Family are preaching — on marriage and on every other political hot-button issue, such as health care.

            If Emrich and his buddies had been around during Jesus’s time, they would have denounced him. Jesus was a radical for his time. He was, dare I say it, a liberal.

          • Anonymous

            Your have to take the whole Bible to know the Truth of God. There are a lot of things Jesus didn’t specially address. That doesn’t mean its not in the Bible. You are trying to limit Truth to only being in the four gospels. Actually, I think you somehow think you have the authority to pick and choose what you like and leave out the rest. That makes you the authority instead of God. Which would make you God which you are NOT.

          • Anonymous

            So all those parts about slavery, incest, and rape being ok should still be followed as well?

          • Joseph Willingham

            How many religious folk here in the fora and out there in real life do exactly that?  Do you call them out on it?

          • Anonymous

            It’s hatred of God, as set forth in Romans Chapter 1.

            There is no better legal, sociological, or psychological explanation of the roots of homosexuality.

          • Anonymous

            Homosexuality exists because Jesus was such a sexy beast, I mean, have you seen those abs?

          • Anonymous

             He doesn’t specifically address smoking either so by you logic it could never be wrong.

          • Anonymous

            There isn’t anything morally wrong with smoking, it’s just unhealthy.

          • Anonymous

             And, smokers can get married.

          • Anonymous

            As I pointed out to sonofbangor, who also didn’t understand my post, I wasn’t suggesting that Christ had an opinion about homosexuality.  I’m simply pointing out that the bible, to the best of my knowledge, has no direct quote from him on the topic.  That’s all.

          • Anonymous

            None of which even addresses the subject at all. If you’re just going to post examples of Bible passages that *don’t* include Jesus addressing the subject of homosexuality, that would be the entire thing. In which case you can just post a link to Bible Gateway and be done with it.

          • Anonymous

            Your assault on your fellow Americans is the type of evil that he was referring to. How can you be so blinded to not see it? 

          • Anonymous

            The religious right claims Jesus hates commies, gays and sinners. That’s funny. From what I’ve read in the Bible, he hung around with drunks, hookers and all kinds of sinners and never condemned anybody …. oh, except for the religious right of his day!

          • Anonymous

            Preposterous and laughable.

            Jesus did not speak against drug use, nuclear weapons, abortion, or armed robbery.

            Are you suggesting he condoned every crime He didn’t mention? 

            He did repeatedly refer to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. And every rabbi since then, up until our degenerate modern age, has understood this to refer to homosexuality. 

            Read Jude 1:7.

          • Anonymous

            Huh?  Read my post again.  Twice, if you need to.  I’m not in any way suggesting that Christ had an opinion one way or the other on homosexuality.  I’m stating that there is no direct quote from him regarding that topic in the bible. 

            Anything else has been a matter of interpretation. 

          • Anonymous

            There is nothing to interpret.

            Jesus as God knows that He rained down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah as a punishment for their sins. 

          • Anonymous

            Sin of being inhospitable.

          • Anonymous

            A mob of homosexual pedophiles with their young boys  trying to rape two angels is about being inhospitable?

            Then what do you call being hospitable? 

          • Anonymous

            What lies your movement is based on!

          • Anonymous

            You are soooooo cute when you’re angry ;)

          • Joseph Willingham

            Sounds like you need a hug!

          • Anonymous

            But offering your daughters to be raped is totally fine?

          • Joseph Willingham

            As longs as not by women, I guess…

          • Anonymous

            You are taking my post beyond what I intended it to be with your stories.  There is no direct quote in the bible from Christ on the topic of homosexuality.  Period. 

          • Anonymous

            There is no mention of mugging, extortion, or check forgery, either. Period.

          • Anonymous

            Are you mentally capable of comprehending what I’m saying?  My original post was simply about another poster’s claim of Christ having commented about homosexuality.  If you want to show me where in the bible he IS verbally quoted, I’d like to see it. 

            That’s all my posts have been about in this thread.  I’ve not suggested that he has endorsed anything by simply not talking about it.

            Unless you can show me a quote, there’s really no need to reply, although you probably will anyway.

          • romans also states He made them both male and female yet 1 in 1500 births has both genders. So how is it the Bible is accurate word for word?.

          • What was Paul’s take on slavery? Or on the role of women?

          • Anonymous

            Paul was compassionate to women, and far in advance of his time on the issue of slavery. 

            Paul died a prisoner, with shackles on his feet. And who are you sir, to criticize one of  the greatest men of all time? 

          • Anonymous

            Who in the world opposed the institution of slavery at that time?

            Christianity elevated the position of women incomparably higher compared to the views of women held by other religions.

            Islam: four wives Hinduism: suti. 

            The Catholic Church prohibited anyone from making Catholic converts slaves.

            The Abolitionist movement in the U.S. was led by Christian ministers. 

            Wilberforce, who eliminated slavery from the British Empire, was an Evangelical Christian.

            ————————————————————————-
            from Wikipedia

            During the first century New Testament times, slaves converted to Christianity, were regarded as freedman brothers in Christ and included in Christ’s kingdom inheritance.[4] These slaves were told to serve their masters as if they were serving Christ, with morals, faithfulness, and respectfullness (Ephesians 6:5-8 KJV).[4] Slaves were told by Paul the Apostle in his first Corinthian Epistle that they were to seek or purchase their freedom whenever possible. (I Corinthians 7:21 KJV) [4] 

          • Anonymous

            Slavery and slave-owning was led by Christians (and many Christian ministers). We don’t have enough space on this site to list the atrocities led by Christians and Christian ministers throughout history.

          • Anonymous

            That is absolutely preposterous and shows a stunning lack of knowledge about history.

            It is nothing more than anti-Christian bigotry, which characterizes the homosexual rights movement.

            It is the direct opposite of the truth, and a lie from the Pit of Hell.

            Read the life of William Wilberforce and the Abolitionists.

            Christian nations were the first nations on earth to abolish slavery.

            Slavery still exists in Africa, Asia, and India.

          • Joseph Willingham

            So, Christians DON’T have a history of of committing atrocities throughout history?

          • Anonymous

            No, Christian nations were far in advance of other nations in terms of human rights.

            To believe otherwise is at best willful ignorance of history, or at worst anti-Christian bigotry. 

            This myth is propagated by Marxists and other haters of Christianity, including the homosexual rights movement.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Okay. So it’s bigotry to view the killing of 200,000 people including Muslims and Jews during the Crusades as an atrocity?
            I think you have a skewed view.

          • Anonymous

            Because the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, slavery, and genocide of Native Americans are all “liberal propaganda”.

          • Anonymous

            “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.” I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man.”  So compassionate and revolutionary.

          • Anonymous

            This is either ignorance of history or anti-Christian bigotry, or both.

            The position of women was higher in Christian nations  than in any other place in the world.

            So the truth is the EXACT opposite of what you state.

            Stop the hatred. 

          • Anonymous

            I’m just quoting YOUR book, don’t like it, take it up with the people who wrote the bible.

          • Anonymous

            What was Paul’s take on murder or theft?

          • Anonymous

            You can not actually prove that any of these things were ever said.  These scriptures were written in conference hundreds of years after the supposed incidents.  Keep your mythology out of everyone else’s public policy.  Trying to inject religious mythology into public policy is an affront to the founders of our secular government system. Try reading the first amendment to the Constitution.  Also, consider how illogical and delusional the embrace of religious mythology is.  Had you been born in ancient Greece, you would be worshiping Zeus and Appollo.  If you had been born in ancient Scandinavia, you would be worshiping Womat and Thor.  If you were from India you’d be worshiping Crishna, and if you were from China you’d be worshiping Buddah.  It is all so foolish.

          • Anonymous

            So what do you use as a belief system that forms and upholds your moral foundation, and what do you believe will happen to you when you die?

          • Anonymous

             Just because a person may not understand the unknown is not a good reason to make up stories (or at least believe in others’ stories). 

          • Anonymous

            I like to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do instead of doing the right thing to get rewarded.

          • Anonymous

            Get your head out of the sand:

            http://www.thechristianleft.org/

          • Anonymous

            You have to be kidding.. according to your web link … “In fact Jesus’ ways are “Liberal.” That’s why He was killed.”.
            This is said NO Where in the Bible in any shape or manner.
            Jesus willing went to the cross as our Substitute bearing our sin, paying the penalty for sin, making salvation a gift by faith to all who will receive it based on Who He is and What He has done for us. No one could have killed Him unless He allowed it. He told his disciples he could have called multitudes of angels to come and fight for Him if He chose to but It was the will of the Father to go to the cross.
            He said:
            “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”
            (Matthew 26:53). He was a willing sacrifice.
            He Even Loved and died for His Enemies, which by the way, you are right now. An enemy to His Word and a Mocker of His Word. You can’t win. You can talk about my head being in the sand as if God and His Word changed somewhere along the way. He hasn’t changed and you are in the DARK. The deep darkness of unbelief and human philosophy. Your problem is unbelief.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, because peace, tolerance, donating to the poor, feeding the hungry, and turning the other cheek could in no way be considered ‘Liberal’ ideas /end sarcasm

          • Washington County

             You are right

          • Anonymous

            So tell me, what will you do when you die and get to heaven, only to discover that God, Himself is gay?

          • Anonymous

            And what will you do when you die and get to hell , only to discover that Satan, himself supports gay lifestyles.

          • Anonymous

            Well, if the only people in heaven are the religious bigots, then I think I would prefer hell, much better company.

          • Anonymous

            I doubt there will be as many there as you seem to think… and there will be plenty of other people :)

          • Rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints…

          • Anonymous

            “a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth where the fire is not quenched, and the worm never dies.”

            Jesus warns 12 times about Hell in the New Testament.

            “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” – Dante’s Inferno.

            Perverted means twisted. 

            Are the people in your movement so twisted they believe that Hell is a pleasant place? 

          • Anonymous

            As horrible as it might be, it’s still better than eternity with bible thumpers.

          • Anonymous

            Satan who?

          • Anonymous

            Satan LePage

          • Anonymous

            On South Park, Satan is gay and in a relationship with Saddam Hussein. 

            Oh, and Jesus has a talk show.

          • Anonymous

            I am willing to bet that Pastor Emerich is actually gay and is on this “crusade” just because it is the ultimate form of denial, and I bet the same can be said of many who profess to be “anti-gay.”  They are so afraid of their own natural inclinations that they work overtime trying to deny them, just like that guy in the movie “American Beauty.”  It’s ok right wingers and religious bigots.  You can relax and admit you are gay.  No one will think the worse.

          • Anonymous

            No problem, old chuckie.  THAT would be my idea of heaven.  Hell would be to be surrounded by a bunch of sponge-brained religious nuts.  Guess I’m safe, then, eh?  All you guys are going to heaven.  BTW, Satan isn’t the devil, he’s actually a dyslexic Santa.

          • Anonymous

             You totally missed the point.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, I think God is genderless.  Our anthropomorphic images are exercizes in futility.  We are crdeated in his image of thinking beings, not in physical form.

          • Anonymous

            Does he, now? Where does the Bible say that in that passage he is defining marriage at all, much less that the form described (not only the most common, but the one he was *answering a question about*) is the only one allowed?

          • Anonymous

            Yawn.

          • Anonymous

             Your comment does not answer his question.

      • Anonymous

        “my my such anger” I am not the one promoting anger or killing or violence. I will leave that to good folks like you and Bob

        • Joseph Willingham

          Ha!  That’s a good point!  Or maybe he’s thinking he’d knock out the teeth for just plain sport?

      • Anonymous

         The scary part of your religious bull crap rant is that you have children!  Oh, your threat should have referenced an oral surgeon (a specialist within the dentistry field) not a dentist. The dentist is where you should periodically take your children. Unless a course a religious interpretation of some twisted biblical phrase makes it a sin to provide your children  with professional medical care.

      • Guest

        //////

      • Joseph Willingham

        Are you saying you would physically harm someone if that person talked to your children about homosexuality?   

      • Anonymous

        If you want to believe in religious mythology that is entirely your right, but you have NO right at all to make your theology my public policy.  Read the first amendment to U.S. Constitution. 

        • Anonymous

          But it will become public policy if SSM wins and churches are bound legally to conduct marriages in order to avoid penalty. Now religion become public policy and its the gay lobby that made it that way.

          • Anonymous

            False – in the states that have legalized same sex marriage, there have been specific provisions in the law to specify that a religious institution will not be forced to perform same sex marriages.

          • Joseph Willingham

            The constitution prevents that from happening anyway.

            I can only imagine the same exact lies being spread when interracial marriages became law.  I can only guess at the lies spread then, that the federal government would force churches to marry black men to white women.
            A church can choose to not wed a couple now, just like the could 6 years ago, just like they can now where SSM is legal.  The state CANNOT dictate that a church must marry certain people.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Lies.

            The Constitution prevents the alarmist scenario you have presented from happening.
            It is PRECISELY this comment and others like it that we want the religious protection part of the law in the actual question.  Not only does this law SPECIFICALLY say that churches will NOT be forced to perform same-sex marriages, but no state could ever force a church to in the first place!
            This fear-mongering and spreading lies must stop.

            And people wonder why we go door to door to talk to the voters.  We do that to combat these lies.

          • Anonymous

             This statement does not speak well of your comprehension skills.

          • Anonymous

            Lets have this conversation 10 years from now after SSM has been legally recognized throughout the country because the federal government stepped in.  I bet I’m really not that far off.  

          • Anonymous

            Well, seeing as there are still churches that don’t recognize interracial marriage, I seriously doubt that churches will be forced to perfrom same sex marriages against their will. 

          • Joseph Willingham

            The gay mafia will infiltrate congress and make them hold a second constitutional convention to make every church perform only SSM.

          • Anonymous

            That would cause a black hole of fabulousness that will destroy America!

      • Anonymous

        If we were voting on Church policy then using the Bible would be appropriate. But since we are a nation of many faiths, using one religious text to decide on matters impacting all Americans is NOT appropriate.

        My husband died because of his service to our country. He lost his life so that all Americans would know freedom and equality. He died for people of all religions, not just so Christians could run the show.

        This isn’t a Christian nation as so many falsely/ignorantly believe. It is a nation of many faiths and we also have the freedom to follow no religious or spiritual belief system. Religion belongs in church/temp/mosque and not in our government or politics.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah, cause our Lord and savior doesn’t want your kids learning about tolerance, acceptance, love, equality, etc., and that we are ALL part of God’s plan and that we are ALL made in God’s image. And our Lord and Savoir commands that we hit people in the teeth who don’t agree with us. 

        Hypocrisy at its finest. 

      • Guest

        So, you state that this guy is angry, fair enough. And you are clear that you eshew the death penalty for homosexuals, fair enough.

        Next, you threaten to inflict damage upon a U S citizen whose Constitutional and inalienable right to petition our Government with their grievances happens to succeed with their petition.

        You respond to his anger and possible success of such petition with a clear violent threat couched in lame humor.

        The lawful response in the US is to use a lawful method to change or challenge any law. This is what responsible US Citizens teach their children.

        Thank you for your service. You have much to learn still. God bless you and yours.

    • Anonymous

      Wow, I didn’t even realize this was that guy.

  • Anonymous

    Great story, kids don’t need to be brought up in a house hold like that.  Keep what happens under your roof and your roof alone. 

    • Anonymous

      I just get so tired seeing these heterosexuals flaunt their lifestyle in public.  Why can’t they just keep it under their roof and their roof alone?

      • ChuckGG

        Some of the “PDA’s” I’ve seen in public would cause a buzzard to wretch.

        • Anonymous

          I’ve seen that too. When I’ve witnessed it in person, it has always been an opposite-sex couple. I don’t know whether that’s because straight couples are so much more common, or because they have less self control, or because in small-town Georgia gay couples are scarce and, by necessity, discreet.

          • ChuckGG

            Gay or Straight, it really comes down to manners and etiquette.  These social skills certainly have fallen off since I was a kid.  It was drilled into us to be polite, well-mannered, and show respect toward others.  The point is that you did not want to disturb others.  No one objects to a kiss or hand-holding, but when it gets to a point where people are shouting, “get a room,” it has gone far too far.  People should show a little more class.

          • Anonymous

            Amen.

            Of course, sometimes people *do* object to handholding or a simple kiss… but, well, you know the rest.

          • ChuckGG

            Yes, that’s the same crowd that objects to inter-racial marriage and that people of color should use different toilet facilities.

    • Guest

      /////

    • Guest

      I know exactly what you mean Randy. I agree with you 100 percent.

      Last week I saw a man and woman wearing wedding rings and they were holding hands in public.

      It was enough to make me vomit.

      • Anonymous

        Yep, I’ll bet it was the same christian couple I saw going into one of the dumbafental churches around here.  They could at least supply free barf bags for us.

    • Anonymous

      Then require that straight couples keep it under their roofs and their roofs alone as well.

  • Anonymous

      This article is so full of falsehoods and twisted analysis as to make it an embarrassment to rational people. First of all the data on children being raised without a mother or father is data on children in single=parent homes.  It in no way can be construed to represent what happens in families with two mothers or two fathers. For Mr Emrich to present it as such is nothing but an outright lie. Secondly despite his assertion that marriage is about children and their needs it is not.  There is no requirement for married people to procreate.  We do not deny marriage licenses to the elderly or people who have no interest in bearing children. He is also ignoring the fact that many gay couples have children. Do these children not deserve the same protections as the children of straight people. Or is Mr Emrich so blind in his disdain of gay people that he feels their children deserve to suffer for what he feels are the sins of their parents? Marriage is and always has been a civil function.  It is religious people like Mr Emrich who seek to politicize it. The early Christian church did not preform marriages.  Before the Justinian Code (527-565 CE) a simple statement that you were married was all that was required. Catholic marriage celebrated in a Catholic church before a priest and two witnesses only became enforced at The Council of Trent (1563 CE) 
      He further twists what has happened with the granting of marriage equality to gay people by making false and erroneous claims about churches losing their tax exemptions, businesses being sued etc. The much ballyhooed example of the church in New Jersey of a church loosing it’s tax exemption always conveniently fails to address what really happened. The church did not loose it tax exemption. It also owned a beach front gazebo. The city had granted them a tax exemption on it with the provision that if it was not being used for a church event it would be available for rental to private individuals.  When the church refused to rent it to two lesbians for the commitment ceremony (thus violating their agreement with the town) they lost the exemption of the gazebo. The same is true with the so-called Christian photographer in New Mexico, they ran afoul of anti-discrimination laws New Mexico does not even recognize gay marriage.  I wonder how loudly Mr Emrich would be screaming if a Muslim photographer refused to photograph a Christian ceremony. He also twists what has happened with Catholic adoption agencies to claiming their were forced out of their ministries.  No what happened was that they were told they could no longer receive government money if they discriminated against gay people. If you want the government money you have to play by the government rules.  They were free to continue what they were doing on their own dime but choose not to.
     It’s a shame that someone who claims to be a Christian would spend so much of their time spreading lies and working to disenfranchise a group of people. Perhaps his time would be better spent ministering to the sick, feeding the poor and helping the downtrodden. After all is that not what your Christ supposedly taught?

    • Anonymous

       Thank you for that post, that was excellent.

    • ChuckGG

      Rational people?  Well, there’s your problem.

  • Guest

    ———–

    • honey777

      It shows how deceptive and un-Christian these extreme religious types are. 

    • Anonymous

       It’s an opinion piece! HELLO!

      • Guest

        …..

      • Tyke

        OK then. This fool’s OPINION is nonsense.

        Better?

      • Anonymous

        A column can be nonsense.

      • Anonymous

        Opinion columns can be nonsense. In this case, nearly every sentence contains at least one deliberate lie or misrepresentation. That’s a substantially different complaint than saying it ought not to express an opinion, or should at least express both competing opinions simultaneously.

  • Anonymous

    Complete and utter bullspit!

  • Guest

    I really, really like this article

    • Guest

      How about logic?

      Not so much, eh?

      • Guest

         makes perfect sense to me

        • Anonymous

          Might we suggest Logic 101?

    • Anonymous

      Because you like anything that supports your personal opinion, even if it is full of lies?

      • Guest

         see—that’s the thing about opinions. I’ve got one, and so do you.

        • Anonymous

          We all get opinions, but we don’t get to have our own facts. When Emrich says there is piles of data proving that gay parents are unfit and don’t perform as well as heterosexual parents — he’s lying. That’s a lie, plain and simple. That’s not a matter of opinion.

          • Anonymous

            Whew! “We’re not entitled to our own facts” is a line so often used by the anti-marriage side, it’s a relief to see it used in another way.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Kind of like the credible criteria-it’s only credible when it agrees with your opinion.

    • Anonymous

      Interesting. What do you like about it?

  • David_in_Houston

    “But marriage is about far more than what adults want for themselves. It’s about what children need.”

    Really? Because Rush Limbaugh (and millions of other straight people) seems to disagree with your definition of marriage. Rush has been married four times. (One has to wonder what he thinks about the so-called sanctity of marriage?) Oddly enough, none of those till-death-do-us-part marriages resulted in any children. Apparently, Rush didn’t get the memo that said that marriage is only for procreation. I guess that’s because it’s isn’t, and never has been. Neither the state nor the government require married couples to procreate. Otherwise, senior citizens, infertile couples, and those that don’t want to raise children wouldn’t be permitted to marry. It’s been that way for over 200 years. It seems like Pastor Bob is the one that’s “redefining marriage” as a means to keep gay couples from having access to secular civil marriage.

    • Anonymous

      I had a good friend who was a devout Christian. She was always spreading the gospel and telling people how great God is. Two years ago, she became involved with a man who had a wife and a 6-year-old child, and even went to the man’s homeland in Scotland while the man was still married.

      The man had a history of domestic abuse, so he wasn’t worth being married to, but that’s beside the point. His wife divorced him because of my friend’s affair with him.

      And yet, my friend was unrepentant about having an affair with a married man. She was quite defiant about it, actually, and still is.

      When she announced her relationship with the guy (after the divorce was final), her Christian friends congratulated her and everything for finding a “nice” man.

      Needless to say, I was — and am — saddened by what my friend did. Although I am still her friend, she is not mine because of this.

      I don’t understand how so-called Christians can denounce same-sex marriage and declare that marriage is for children and strong families, yet destroy families themselves. (When my friend got an invitation from another of her friends to attend a rally in support of same-sex marriage in California, my friend said she would have to be taken to the rally “kicking and screaming.”)

      • Anonymous

        Why would anyone take her there kicking and screaming? It would just make her a nuisance to everybody else :)

  • Joseph Willingham

    Nonsense.

    • Anonymous

      I like that we’ve said essentially the same thing, yet you did it in one word and it took me ten separate, long posts :)

      • Joseph Willingham

        Haha!  Thanks!  I’m usually long-winded but I felt that short was sweet enough in this case.
        Have you seen Mr. Emrich in the Question One documentary?  I believe that he is a dangerous man who doesn’t believe in freedom for all Americans.

        • Joseph Willingham

          Oh, and your posts are great.  Even though some people seem to think it’s ridiculous to post such thorough rebuttals, I hope that some fence-sitters read and understood your points.

          • Anonymous

            If *anyone* read through all that who didn’t already essentially agree with what I was saying, and if it just gets them to pay a bit more attention to what people like this guy are really saying, it was worth the time.

            (And I think I’ll hang on to the mansion analogy. It’s the one thing in there I don’t remember either seeing elsewhere or using before, and it seems like a good answer to a line that comes up all the time because it’s a main talking point on that side.)

        • Anonymous

          I haven’t seen that, but know quite enough about him to agree with your assessment. I just tend to read without checking authors’ names.

  • newoptions4u

    I intend to vote for the “redefining” of what makes a marriage because whatever my beliefs are personally about straight or gay couples the fact remains marriage is a government sanctioned institution or I would not have to have a licence issued by the government in order for my marriage to be legally recognized by the government. I would not get tax breaks based on that status and a  lot of other advantanges t married couples recieve automatically once the marriage has been registered with the government.  I could be married by my minister in my church but if I don’t have that government issued piece of paper and it does not get registered with the government then the government does not recognize the marriage.  Thereby to me the government has the obligation to not discriminate in what is defined as marriage based on peoples religious belief.  And if marriage was only about procreation than a couple who finds themselves infertile or chooses not to have children should be barred from being married and I think we would all agree that would be just plain stupid.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for your support and understanding!

  • It is really discouraging to see that the BDN has chosen to run this contribution by Bob Emerich – not because I don’t believe that people who have different opinions than mine should not have a platform to express them, but because this particular contribution spreads MISinformation, which is the opposite of any newspaper’s mission to inform the public. 

    When Emerich says “Social science is chock full of data showing that when kids lack either a mother or a father, they suffer” he is being disingenuous. Social science data overwhelmingly demonstrates that gay parents are just as effective as straight ones. And many negative effects that kids of gay parents do experience as a result of their parents’ sexual orientation would probably be mitigated if being gay were less stigmatized in our society; by working against gay rights, people like Bob Emerich actively make the lives of the children of gay parents harder, which is a consequence I’m sure he doesn’t intend, but which is the outcome nevertheless.

    Anti-gay rights folks appear fixated on the importance of marriage in society, but the fact is that marriage is an institution whose purpose, meaning, and role in society varies tremendously from culture to culture, and has fluctuated over time, even within Western society. For instance, there is good evidence that same-sex marriages were performed by the early Christians (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions  for a crash-course). What we would recognize as “gay marriage” was actually rather common amongst Native Americans prior to the arrival of European missionaries. Other societies have also accommodated same-sex marriages in various ways. 

    And in many, many societies, the biological father is barely a presence in a child’s life, and it is the mother’s brother who takes on the childrearing responsibilities we traditionally associate with dads. Emerich’s insinuation that there is only one “right” way – heterosexual marriage – to organize society for the good of children is both empirically false and also incredibly offensive to many cultures around the world.

    I understand that the BDN feels compelled to offer readers a balanced approach to this hot-button issue, and that includes giving anti-gay activists a space to express their views. But in the name of providing “balance,” the BDN has contributed to the misinformation of its readership. Please find someone more educated on the topic of marriage to provide us with good arguments for why gay marriage should not be permitted in Maine.      

    • It’s an opinion piece from one of the chief decision makers for Protect Marriage Maine – the BDN is correct to run it.

      That doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with it. And reading the comments here has very uplifting indeed.

      • Oh, I know, I know. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and all that, and people like Emerich inevitably come off sounding like ignorant ashes whenever anyone gives them a mic or column inches. I just wish that, for once, though, I could hear the opinion of someone who is actually informed rather than just blowing a lot of hot air and spreading misinformation. Surely there must be someone out there who has some real, substantive arguments against gay marriage……right? Right?? 

        • Anonymous

          Don’t hold your breath.

        • Anonymous

          Well, “hurts children” would be a substantive argument, were it the truth. There are many reasons it’s *not* true, of course…

        • Joseph Willingham

          “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

        • ChuckGG

          I have asked for that countless times.  All I want are some valid, documented, accurate reasons against same-sex marriage and I will consider and ponder those.

          However, I have received none.  The only arguments I have found against SSM involve, either directly or indirectly, some violation of a religious tenet, or some questionable study or report indicating some harm to children.

          What probably stuns me the most is the people who write for the anti-SSM sites do not seem to understand or accept what is considered “standard” for research paper documentation and reference.  I was on the NOM website commenting about the divorce rate being about 50%.  A woman challenged this and stated that NOM has “cleared that up,” and that the divorce rate never reached anywhere near 50%.  I countered with my reference to statistics gathered by the CDC (to me, a reputable source).  She countered with a reference that consisted of a quote from an assistance professor of sociology from some college in Oklahoma.  I read the Asst. Prof’s quote.  It had no basis in fact.  It was just a quote she stated in some article.  Yet, this was sufficient for the NOM writer to conclude the CDC numbers were inaccurate.

          I have found in this whole SSM exercise since 2009 a stunning lack of understanding of the scientific method, of research methods, and of fact checking, in general.  The anti-SSM justifications have not come from the sharpest pencils in the box, from what I have seen.  (Yes, I know I will hear about that statement.  But, as I have asked for endlessly – show me the facts – not opinions, not religious dogma – facts.)

      • Anonymous

        You and Zelda both make fair points, but I think Zelda is correct in questioning whether it is right to publish something that has so many flagrant lies and falsehoods. Opinion is one thing that can differ. But lies to support that opinion? I don’t think that’s right. 

        • Had this been composed by just anybody – yes, I agree, the BDN should not publish it, as full of hokum as it is.

          But it’s not by just anybody. It’s by Bob Emrich, who is listed as one of the three decision makers on the registration of Protect Marriage Maine PAC.

          That it has “so many flagrant lies and falsehoods,” as you describe, says much more about Mr. Emrich then the drivel that he writes. Spokesman that undercut their own argument are to be promoted!

        • Anonymous

          Besides what Gerald Weinand said, there’s another reason that, if the goal is to have opinion pieces on both sides, this almost has to get admitted. At root, there are only two or three reasons people who’ve thought things through oppose marriage equality: “I don’t like it,” “God doesn’t like it,” and, unless you prefer to fold it into the first option, “I’m just not used to the idea yet.”

          The first and last ones, obviously, make a lousy argument for anything other than your own personal choices; it would be like, say, my advocating for a law against grilled cheese sandwiches because I prefer peanut butter and jelly. And the second too plainly runs afoul of freedom of religion, at least for anyone who values that freedom for everybody, not just themselves.

          That only leaves “flagrant lies and falsehoods.” And if that’s all that’s left, and you’re determined to publish pieces on both sides, that’s what you have to run with.

          • Anonymous

            I think you really hit it on the head there.  I’m hoping the biggest barrier for folks is really “I’m just not used to the idea yet” – which would hint at generational progress.  While frustrating, its better than none at all.

        • Anonymous

          Actually Wolfndeer I think the NEWS and other papers owe it to their readers to publish more articles from Bob and other like minded individuals. It gives the general public a better understanding of the bigotry and hate behind those who are leading the anti-SSM movement. 

          • Anonymous

            You’re right. I just hope some readers don’t mistake the lies in the piece for real facts.

      • ChuckGG

        I often have wished the newspapers would label all OP-ED pieces as just that, and opinion, and that the newspaper does not necessarily agree with it, etc.  I think, unfortunately, many read an op-ed piece as if the writer were part of the paper as the format for the story is very similar.  I guess what I am saying is that there should be a way to more clearly state the article is an opinion and not necessarily fact that meets normal newspaper reporting standards.

    • Anonymous

      Actually, it was good they printed it.  gave usall a chance to see how far off-base this guy and supporters are.

      • Joseph Willingham

        Yes.  And I hope that they publish more from our pal Michael “Mike” Heath!  It’d be great if they publish his emails-wow!  What a hoot THOSE are!

      • Anonymous

        Well, it might… except that it sounds reasonable at the surface reading most people are likely to give it unless something sticks out at you and prompts you to dig further. “Marriage is for children” sounds good. Most married people do have children, or at least want them, and most people who have children, hopefully at least, react strongly to a perceived threat to them. Unless you happen to be in a childless (or childfree) marriage yourself or were thinking about someone who is when you came across the claim (or, of course, are gay or fairly strongly gay friendly yourself) it’s quite easy to swallow.

    • Anonymous

      I’ll give you a good reason.

      The homosexual rights movement is part of a degenerate civilization. 

      To put sterile relationships, based on immoral and harmful sex acts, on a par with marriage is madness. 

      And there is no need to quote these lying articles.

      “Science” on the issue of homosexuality is as politicized in America as it was in the Soviet Union under Stalin.

      • Anonymous

        Harmful sex acts?  I can assure you that there is nothing harmful about it.  Don’t knock it till you try it! ;)

        • Joseph Willingham

          I’ll wager some of these straight people in here have engaged in the same.
          In any case, sex between any two consenting adults is no longer the business of the state, so, unless this is Iran, it’s a moot point.

  • Guest

    Mr. Emrich, you and Mr. Heath have problems and gay marriage isn’t one of them.

    May you suffer the problems that the two of you cause to others one hundred fold.

    • Anonymous

      They probably already do “suffer the problems.”  They just haven’t been caught…yet.

    • Anonymous

      I suspect that if there’s any truth to the idea of purgatory, it’s that, on arriving in heaven, we really and truly know the harm our actions have done to others…. especially when we thought we were doing the right thing. And I cannot imagine anything more horrible to learn in that scenario than that someone who, without my influence, would have been saved, wound up in hell because my actions told him he wouldn’t be welcome in heaven. Well, except that there wasn’t just one, but many.

      • Anonymous

        That would imply that one has a conscience and empathy.  Unfortunately, it seems like those two are the first to go out the door when politics is involved.

        • Anonymous

          Too true… but there are at least two possible answers to that, too. That lack could be fixed first, or, well, there’s always another option besides heaven for those who really don’t care about anyone else at all.

  • Anonymous

    Unless the church preaches that God loves everyone unconditionally…the church will fast be coming obsolete…

    • Anonymous

       Love does NOT equal endorsement of sin. For the woman at the well was accepted – then told to “sin no more.” We can’t have the first piece without the second.

      • Anonymous

        The “sin” you stand against is that of two people blessed enough to find each other in this life, to build a supportive, monogamous relationship.

        I fail to see how that is sinful. God condemns rape, not love.

        If you are referring to passages in the bible condemning homosexuality, keep in mind that this same bible says a lot in support of slavery. It’s better to live by the intent of the bible, no one follows every word as if it were literal.

  • Anonymous

    Emrich has it wrong. Marriage is a civic institution that was traditionally far more rooted in economics than child-rearing. Children were being born and raised before and outside of marriage long before the institution was invented. Marriage regulated property ownership, including wives, children, cattle and slaves, though not necessarily in that order.  None of that, of course, diminishes the importance of marriage and family, straight or gay, in child-rearing today. The Reverend is opposing the changing societal values with regard to gay rights and the expansion of  the concept of marriage on purely Biblical grounds and for his own personal reasons.  Since we live in a democratic and free society that, for the best of reasons, isn’t  tied to any particular religion there is no reason to view the Reverend’s perspective as holding any greater weight than that of  anyone else.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder what kind of resources need to be put into schools to create this “thriving marriage culture” the author wants.

  • Anonymous

    10. “In other states and countries we’ve seen churches lose their tax exemptions, ministers hauled before Human Rights commissions, charitable groups forced to end their ministries, small businesses sued, professionals losing their licenses and — yes — gay marriage taught to very young children in public school in a manner that gives parents no rights to prior notice or to opt them out of such instruction.”—Ah, the same tired old list. Aside from the basic overblown nature of the complaints when they’re actually listed…. other countries do not have the same legal code we have, and therefore are irrelevant, the claim charitable groups have been FORCED to end their ministries is a bold-faced lie, and the others have to do, not with marriage (which in most cases wasn’t even legal where the incidents happened) but with plain, ordinary anti-discrimination laws. The same kind that stop people from not serving you because of your race or religion. If you want to get rid of those, argue against them, but using them as an example of the supposed problems marriage equality would cause is simply to lie. Which, by the way, I believe is still on God’s Top Ten list.

  • Anonymous

    9. “Gay marriage would not exist in the law alongside traditional marriage. The initiative petition redefines marriage for everyone.”—TRUE AND FALSE AT THE SAME TIME. No, gay marriage would not be a separate institution. But imagine that the “institution of marriage” is a vast and beautiful mansion. We’re talking about adding on a new wing, in a style consistent with and complementary to the existing structure, and you’re painting it instead as if we’re proposing demolishing the whole thing and building a strip mall instead. That’s fundamentally dishonest.

  • Anonymous

    8. “What we have argued is that when marriage is taught in school, it will be a new genderless version of marriage, one that is at odds with the religious, moral and personal beliefs of many Mainers and one that is forced on children over the objections of parents.”—PERHAPS. But what does that mean, exactly, in practice? Unless you keep your children locked in the basement or something, they will know anyway. What you’re describing is simply the school not denying basic facts about the world as it exists, whether you believe it ought to be that way or not. We’re talking about schools not denying the bare fact that people can legally marry regardless of sex: NOT saying it’s either right or wrong that they do so. You can teach them that at home, if you really want to, though you’d be doing them a disservice. Meanwhile, your argument is logically equivalent to, say, “if we make DC and Puerto Rico states, schools will teach our kids that there are 52 states, despite many of their parents thinking 50 was plenty.”

  • Anonymous

    7. “There is nothing political about marriage in the least.”—FALSE. Marriage has been political at least since Roman times, when politically unpopular groups were sometimes forbidden to marry. More than that, though, anything can legitimately become a political issue, and anything that is regulated by the government is already one. If your goal were to make it less of a political issue, you would stop fighting and let us marry, as the whole concept of equal protection under the law logically requires.

  • Anonymous

    6. “The shortcomings of the institution of marriage (divorce, co-habitation, adultery, etc.) are no reason to abandon it. Rather, we should be strengthening marriage by devoting resources — in churches, in schools and in nonprofit agencies and departments of government — to creating a thriving marriage culture in our state and nation.”—TRUE! Finally, you got one exactly right! Except you’re fighting to do the opposite. You are treating a change that strengthens marriage as an institution as if it were its annihilation. The truth is that allowing gay couples to marry strengthens the institution as a whole. It means being able more nearly to expect the same thing from everybody. And notice this: by forcing gay couples, with or without children, to remain unmarried, you are not going to get them to go pair off with someone of the opposite sex. They will go on living their lives regardless, albeit with added, unnecessary, and unfair burdens that others don’t have. And think about the consequences of that. It means they are, directly as a result of your actions, forced to set an example that marriage is unnecessary. Is that really what you want children and young adults to see? Is that really better than their seeing gay and straight alike marry, at least as the ideal if not always in practice?

  • Anonymous

    5. “The institution of marriage is our way of trying to bond children with their parents so that they have the benefit of the love and support of their parents.”—FALSE. What we’re talking about here is not marriage-the-actual-relationship-between-two-people-regardless, but marriage-the-government-issued-document. Which does not and cannot bind children to their parents. Legally, children are bound to their parents whether those parents are married or not, excepting stepparents. Relationally, children bond with those who are raising them regardless of what paperwork is filed away in the courthouse basement.

  • Anonymous

    4. “Social science is chock full of data showing that when kids lack either a mother or a father, they suffer.”—FALSE. Social science is chock full of data showing that children do better with two parents than with one, and reasonably full of data saying that children do better with married parents than with unmarried ones. There are very few studies which actually compare children raised by gay couples to children raised by straight couples who are equally situated otherwise, and those that do tend to show no difference. The usual slight of hand is to use studies that actually compared married couples to single parents as if they’d instead compared straight couples to gay ones, and the recent study (some guy whose name starts with R, but I’m not looking it up now) which claims a better result for married, straight couples didn’t even find enough children raised by actual gay couples all the way up to compare it to, instead lumping every child whose parent ever had any same-sex relationship at all (lifelong, or extramarital affair, re-pairing after divorcing the other parent, single parent dating, etc) together on one side, regardless of all other factors, and then compared them to a group made entirely of children raised by the same, opposite-sex, married couple from birth to 18. If you can’t see a logical flaw in making that comparison, you have problems.

  • Anonymous

    3. “Were it not for the interests of children, society (read, government) would have no interest in marriage at all.”—FALSE. The “government interest” in marriage is, at its base, the same as it is in anything else: benefitting the public. While, as I said before, same-sex marriage does in fact benefit some children while harming none, even if it were only adults there are other aspects of marriage which are the proper role of government, and which cannot be contracted privately. Recognizing the married couple as, in some ways, almost being one entity benefits them, and therefore society, whether or not they have children, and includes items which to disallow would be grossly and unequivocally unfair.

    A few examples of how the government treats, and ought to treat, married couples as a single unit: passing property back and forth between them without tax penalty; in the case where one dies owing Medicare for a nursing home stay, not taking the house until the other passes away too (really, now, it’s downright evil to do otherwise, yet you would have them do it to gay people); easier immigration in cases where one of the couple is from another country (again, grossly and obviously wrong to force married couples to live in separate countries); Fifth Amendment protection against having to testify against your spouse in court; and on and on. Many of which either have nothing at all to do with children, or else only affect them too indirectly to take an argument using children as the only rationale seriously.

  • Anonymous

    2. “It says to children that we as a community have recognized a structure, the institution of marriage, that is uniquely focused on connecting children to the people responsible for bringing them into the world — their parents.”—FALSE. Again, children are a totally optional component of marriage, but the larger point is that people who say this routinely prove they don’t really mean it. If you did mean it, you would just as vehemently rail against adoption and step parenting when the couple involved contains both sexes. At the very minimum, you would do so in all cases where neither biological parent is actually dead.

  • Anonymous

    There’s simply too much wrong with this not to break it down. I’m sorry this wound up having to be multiple posts, but it’s easier to read that way.
    1. “But marriage is about far more than what adults want for themselves. It’s about what children need.”—PARTLY TRUE, BUT DELIBERATELY MISLEADING. Marriage is only even partially “about what children need” if and when the individual marriage in question actually involves children. Childless couples are no less married for being childless: therefore, it is logically impossible for marriage in general to be solely, or even primarily, about children. At its most basic, the purpose of marriage is to establish kinship between the couple, making them officially closer relatives to each other even than parent and child. And *that* purpose cannot logically and directly be tied to a requirement that they be of different sexes.

    But taking the part of marriage which *is* of benefit to children: the glaring truth you ignore is that allowing gay marriage provides that same benefit to the children of gay couples, who they will be raising with or without legal marriage, while harming precisely zero children in any way whatsoever.

  • Anonymous

    Several misconceptions and falacies.  In most of the first world, government performed or licensed marriage is the only legal form. There’s more to marriage than having children (thank goodness on behalf of those couples who can’t have children), several legal or property aspects.  In fact, throughout Western history (and some Eastern), marriages were usually arranged for property values and children were a byproduct.  If there had been univerally recognized civil unions, the push for SSM may have slackened.  A recent thouhgt; what everhappened to Common Law marriages, probably a necessity in pioneer times?

    Agreed that we should work harder to strengthen traditional marriage, especially for the children.  However, SSM couples can just as easily (and statistically more likely) provide the loving homes that children needgiven the crying need for foster and adoptive parenthood.  SSM is not abandoning traditional marriage, it can help strengthen it.

    Maine law may provide “substantial” legal protections and priveleges for same sex couples, but not enough. Horror stories abound.

    I know you’ll never be convinced but I hope a majority of voters join me (a straight memeber of a 50+ year marriage) in reinstituting SSM in Maine.

  • Anonymous

    If you say it’s all about children, then simple: ban those who can’t or won’t procreate, otherwise this is discrimination. Period.

    • Anonymous

      Yep. Happily married for 22 years here, haven’t had children, guess we aren’t really married.

      Marriage is a legal relationship between adults that confers certain rights, protections, and benefits from the government, employers, and other entities. It’s discriminatory to deny those same things from a gay couple who wants to be married.

      If your church doesn’t want to recognize these marriages or perform them, that’s their right because it addresses only the religious aspect of marriage.

      But denying others the same legal rights that my husband and I have thanks to $25, a license, and 10 minutes in front of notary public doesn’t seem fair to me.

      • I’ve been meaning to ask the “new Gestapo” to talk to you about your lack of children.

        • Anonymous

          LOL

    • Anonymous

      Talk about secret police tactics.

      • Anonymous

        That’s kinda the point.

  • The Mormon front group NOM has created their own PAC, one that allows them to “support and oppose ballot questions AND candidates.”

    • Anonymous

      Yet again I find myself grateful for information, yet sorry that the customary way of expressing that is to claim to like it. Thanks for the warning.

  • seththayer

    Dear “Pastor” Emrich, thank you for your opinion.  Sorry that it is totally irrelevant to most people.

    • Anonymous

       Actually Seth, so is YOUR opinion! But just like Emrich, you are entitled to it!

      • Anonymous

        Au contraire.  His opinion is very relevant.  Pastor I’mrich’s?  Not hardly.

      • Anonymous

        An opinion is only worth something if they have actual facts to support it.  Unfortunately, the “facts” in this article are anything but.

  • Anonymous

    Thanks BDN for running this piece. I don’t agree with some of the things expressed by the author, but I appreciate you running it.

    All you that attacked me earlier, please read that again and let it sink in!

  • Anonymous

    Tolerance is cement that bonds a healthy society and prejudice does not fit!

    • Crap!

      • Anonymous

        What IS this fascination you have with crap, Jack?  Ever talk to anyone about this problem?

        • Anonymous

          And how did that clear the censors?  I used an ethnic version of that word once and got bounced.

  • Anonymous

    Am I the only one that thinks hyhybt has WAY TOO MUCH time on his hands?!?!

    • Anonymous

      Unfortunately, when people like Pastor Emrich back up their opinions with so much misinformation, it takes a lot of text to refute it all.  It’s good that somebody went through the piece in detail.

      • Anonymous

        Muchas gracias.

    •  You’re right, but nobody reads it anyway.

      • Anonymous

        You must of been on your high school debating team!

    • Tyke

      I appreciate the thoroughless and complete accuracy of those posts.

      Don’t like them – don’t read them. Simple.

    • Washington County

       No your not the only one

    • Anonymous

      Not really.  Excellent and enlightened research and analysis.

      • Anonymous

        Sorry, my reply to Abbyisgod wound up here by mistake.

        Thanks very much! I didn’t actually do any research or analysis, except for having argued against the same nonsense many times before and having read many good articles over the last few years to absorb from… for this purpose, probably especially Box Turtle Bulletin.

    • Anonymous

      I got started, and didn’t even realize how much time it was taking until I’d finished.

    • Joseph Willingham

      No.  He has the right amount of time to rebut the misleading and untruthful points Mr. Emrich made in his piece.

    • Anonymous

      Well, I don’t see you contributing much to the conversation.

  • Anonymous

    Bob, it is the shortcomings of your religion (read, child molesters) and institution of marriage (read, failed unions) that have denied so many children their need for love and support.  Children need a healthy loving environment, which  in addition to the typical mom and dad, can be provided by adoptive parents, grandparents, relatives, Lucie and Annie” and “Jim and Steve”.  Your bottom line is a false claim that gay marriage is a threat to your self-claimed religious definition of marriage, that serves as your breeding ground for future inductees to your particular belief.  I am tired of you religious claims of being the one and only path to the creator and your belief that you hold the one and only key to morality. If you truly are focused on the safety & love of our children why not focus your energies on how to prevent the abuses to Maine children as has been witnessed by the Catholic Church and by the recent bridge jumping Reverend Carlson? Why, one may ask? Simply because your gay bashing is not about kids; rather, it’s  about the hate and prejudice you spew in the so called name of  your God. My God despises your ignorance!!

    • Crap!

      • Tyke

        You keeping crapping.

        Sounds like you don’t know Jack, Jack.

    • Anonymous

      Why would you attack Rev Carlson he was a homosexual?

      • Anonymous

        Can you say, “pedophile?”

        • Anonymous

          His “relationship” was with an adult

      • Anonymous

         What amazes me and explains to all your unfounded homophobic paranoia is the fact that you and those like you do not know the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual.

        • Anonymous

          What explains to me your heterosexual vitriol is your inability to admit Carlson was a homesexual pedophile and using your standard there was nothing wrong with the relationship after the boy attained adult status. Typical method of those with no rational argument attack the person with the differing opinon. Don’t offer an intelligent response just attack, you have no intelligent response based on reason only an emotional one to try to cloud the issue.

          • Anonymous

            But in large pedophiles don’t have gender preferences. They’re opportunistic and prey on what’s available. It’s a matter of power, not gender or looks. That’s fact. 

            You don’t get to try and pin this example on the gay community as there is plenty of similar examples of pedophiles attacking young girls. It’s not relevant to the discussion at hand whatsoever. 

          • Anonymous

            You refuse to admit it but it is relevant, at what point in the relationship did it change from pedophile to homosexual community. Again your response was to attack the messenger, you don’t determine what is relevant and what is not, logic does something perhaps you are not familiar with. Your blather is meaningless.

          • Anonymous

            No, you don’t get it.  Pedophilia has no place whatsoever in a discussion about same sex marriage.  The real purpose of bringing in pedophilia is to attempt to equate it to homosexuality, which is not true.  There is no “change from pedophile to homosexual community”.  Pedophilia is about sexual abuse where there is no legal consent.

          • Joseph Willingham

            I agree.  There is never any talk about preventing straight people from marrying because of those pedophiles who are straight.

          • Anonymous

            One of your poster’s mentioned Carlson, ask them the question, the real purpose of mentioning Carlson was to disparage ministers, you can’t have it both ways, pick one and stick with it.

          • Anonymous

            There is nothing to admit. There is no such thing as a homosexual pedophile or a heterosexual pedophile for that matter. That’s not what pedophilia is.

            Your ignorance is meaningless. If you don’t know what you’re talking about then pipe down and quit spreading misinformation.

          • Anonymous

            Your ignorance is showing in your inability to acknowledge facts. Spread some more hate it what you do best! In fact it is all that you do

          • Anonymous

            You are the one who can’t seem to understand the difference between a consenting relationship and child abuse.  You are the one spreading hate by comparing homosexuals to pedophiles.  You are the one who is unable to acknowledge facts.

          • Anonymous

            Fact Carlson’s relationship was with an adult. The hate was directed at a pedophilic minister, rightfully so, but no one can bring themselves to acknowledge his homosexuality. No one will answer the question, in your silence your assumed to agree>

          • Anonymous

            His homosexuality is irrelevant to the discussion about same sex marriage.  The poster was commenting on how Mr. Emrich says he is concerned about child safety, but is doing nothing about threats posed by pedophiles. You are the one who incorrectly tried to related it to homosexuality.  The reason no one will answer is because it is irrelevant. 

          • Anonymous

            Carlson’s homosexuality isn’t irrelevant to a discussion of same sex marriage?

            Carlson was the most influential proponent of same sex marriage in Maine, and he jumped off a bridge when it was discovered he was leading a double life. 

            He was living a lie, just as the entire Gay Same Sex UFO Pogo The Clown Marriage movement is based on lies.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Wow.  Whatever little credibility you MIGHT have had has evaporated in a poof of smoke, now that you have cited the Westboro Baptist Church.
            You need a doubleplushug to get rid of all that hate!

          • Anonymous

            “I know you are, but what am I?”

            What a great and thoughtful reply guest126. You keep trying to flip things around and it’s pathetic. 

  • Your flagging and deleting of comments is like the Gestapo…Oh no, “that” word again.

    • Tyke

      Violating those pesky little terms of posting are you jack?

      Poor little victim.

      • It’s obvious that you don’t know Jack. Just sayin’.

        • Tyke

          Thank the Lord for that!

    • Anonymous

      As yes, because someone deleting a comment is totally the equivalent to genocide…

    • Anonymous

      Get your head out of the sand:

      http://www.thechristianleft.org/

  • ChuckGG

    As usual, Emrich misses many points.  His premise that marriage is all about children is flawed.  Marriage is needed for all couples who are concerned about their own legal rights, and if children are present, the legal rights of those children, as well.  His statement that without children legal marriage is not needed is incorrect.  Anyone who has had an ill spouse and needed insurance or had to give medical consent would know this.  Those whose spouses died intestate know the importance of marriage to inheritance.  Even in divorce, the equitable division of assets is affected by whether or not one is married.  Emrich’s attempt to drag children into the issue is one of seeking an emotional response from his readers.

    Furthermore, what Emrich misses entirely is that gay families have existed and will continue to exist into the future, some with children.  Children gain forms of protection from legal marriage of their parents.  Whether or not SSM is passed into law will have no effect on the number of gay families.  There will be no more and no less, with or without SSM.  The only difference is whether those children gain the protections offered by SSM.

    As far as SSM being taught in schools?  Well, it is an ever increasing part of the human experience, just as are inter-faith marriages and inter-racial marriages.  SSM is just another form of marriage.  I don’t recall much ever being taught in school about marriage in the first place.  I doubt SSM will gain any more notoriety than any other form of marriage.  How exactly would this come up in the normal curriculum?  And, as there will be classmates who have SS parents, why should they be excluded from the normal course of everyday school activity and conversation?  Kids are not stupid.  They know that Bobby has two mommies and Sally has two daddies, and they do not care, nor should they.  Setting these children and their parents out as examples by excluding them from conversation is no different than excluding any other minority from full participation in the educational experience.  It should not be done.

    What we are seeing from Emrich is yet another tact to attempt to dissuade people from real life.  The religious arguments are so long in the tooth, no one is listening to those any longer, and they never were valid as SSM is dealing only with secular marriage and not marriage by a religious organization.  This attempt to “show harm to children” is just a diversion.  Children today are from so many blended family structures that SS parents is just another flavor.

    Emrich is wrong about the consequences of “redefining marriage.”  Redefining?  What a tired phrase.  Current and future straight marriages will not be affected at all.  If they are, I would like to know specifically just how they are affected.  He never seems to mention how. 

    This carrot Emrich tosses about allowing the Legislature to address issues SS couples experience in lieu of marriage is ridiculous.   Here is the legal deal, plain and simple:  Civil marriage is recognized by the State, all other States, the Federal Government, and all other countries.  Civil Unions and other forms of “agreements” are recognized by the State in which they were created.  They are not recognized by all other States, not recognized by the Federal Government, and certainly not recognized by all other countries.  Therefore, civil unions  are not equal to civil, secular marriage.

    As far as religious organizations losing their tax-exempt status?  Hogwash.  Show me ONE example where a religious institution was hauled into court for NOT performing ANY religious ceremony, much less a same-sex marriage ceremony.   It has never happened and never will because we have the First Amendment.

    Where the churches have encountered issues is when they decided to step outside of their religious protection umbrella and play in the secular sandbox for PROFIT.  If a church hangs out a shingle, puts an ad in the paper, or otherwise advertises to the public that it will rent out its cafeteria and hall for an event, they must follow the secular laws.  Denying access to a gay couple for “public accommodation” is no different than refusing to serve blacks at a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, NC.

    Emrich and others of the religious bent are grabbing at straws trying to find some reason to deny basic civil rights to a minority.  As has been shown in countless court cases, SSM poses no harm to anyone.  Therefore, laws against it cannot stand.  And, they will not.  It is just a matter of time.

    • Anonymous

      Ha, ha…marriage is only about legal rights. 

      What a degenerate, botched civilization…a civilization without moral values, a civilization based on greed and run by lawyers, accounts, and Wall Street banksters!

      “an ever increasing part of human experience…” 

      • ChuckGG

        In this context (that of the referendum), it is only about legal rights.  Issues of morality are external to secular, civil marriage.  Those issues are handled by any number of other sources including how one is raised, the ethics instilled by one’s family, and in many cases, by churches.  All of this falls under the category of good & bad.  One can obtain their social morality, good or bad, from any of the sources I mentioned.  When it comes to this behavior, we all are products of our upbringing and environment.

        We certainly have seen some churches provide an open and welcoming attitude toward all people, while some are quite closed and restrictive to their own beliefs to the exclusion of others.

        Your problem, other than being a religious ideologue, is that you believe that a person’s morals and ethics must be obtained solely from the religious teachings of a church, either by attending the church or being raised in a very religious and dogmatic environment that happens to match yours.

        This is not true.  I have countless examples of ethical and moral people who were raised in countries where religion was banned, and also, myself, who was raised in the more English rules of proper behavior, etiquette, and being a gentleman.  Religion, in my case, was left to me by my parents.  They told me to explore whatever religion I would like and decide, or not, if it fits my life.  I did as they suggested during my teenage years.  After reading and studying a number of religions, I concluded that some are there primarily as a social club/group and to form a sense of community (that’s fair), and some are there solely to control the masses, force them into a particular mold, and threaten them with eternal damnation (via passive-aggressive techniques) should they stray off the standard set of rails assigned to them.

        All believed, in varying degrees, in the hocus-pocus part of religion – the supernatural part which I concluded, for me, was really little more than a controlling mechanism to keep the masses in-line, and to “sell the product.”  But, that’s the great part about living in the USA.  We have freedom of religion which also includes freedom FROM religion.  Lately, however, the really religious crowd is attempting to turn our secular democracy into a theocracy, and a Fundamentalist/Evangelical one at that.

        In conclusion, I disagree with your assessment that morality and ethics is derived only from fear of retribution from some supernatural being in the sky.  Among what I consider normal people, I run into none of the dysfunctional behavior you describe.  Clearly, adherence to religious dogma does nothing to ensure people won’t display dysfunctional behavior.  We have countless examples from all branches of Christianity where people have failed the prescribed moral and ethical behavior.  I see no “cause and effect” between religion and moral/ethical behavior.

        One other point:  Morality is subjective.  I know with your limited view of the world, you disagree.  However, I am sure there is a Muslim cleric, right now, complaining about the “brazen harlots” in the USA, walking around the town with no male escort, with the naked arms bared for all to see (including Allah), and refusing to wear a burka.  Clearly, these women have no understanding of morality.

        So, really, get off your high horse.  If SSM offends your morality, well how unfortunate for you.  Until you can provide some valid reason how SSM will harm society or the people involved, you really do not have any skin in this game.

        • Anonymous

          Great post, but I think you are wasting your time trying to have a rational debate with SonofBangor.  He will just say that any facts you bring up are tainted by “the gay”.

          • ChuckGG

            Thanks.  I realize that.  You can’t rationalize with people who have drunk the religious Kool-Aid.  Back in the 1980’s when I was working for a certain group in DC, my job was to create certain scenarios related to the USSR.  I did my job, and I think I did it well.  However, personally, I was never particularly worried about the opposition as they are normal people and we are normal people.  Aside from an accident (which was possible), the likelihood of them turning us into toast and vice-versa, was pretty remote in my estimation.  Still, one needs to be cautious.

            At that time, I said the real threat will be from the Middle East where some religious nutbars will want to die for Allah.  I think my prediction was spot-on.  Any religious zealot whether it is for Allah, Christ, or Hirohito, is a tough nut to crack.  There is no negotiation, no reasonableness, no communication.  God said so, so that’s it.

            Still, one must try, but I realize it is a very long shot.

        • Anonymous

          This is full of errors.

          Homosexuals are normal, but people who believe God punishes sin –whether they are Christian, Jew, or Moslem — are “dysfunctional.”

          “All morality is subjective.” This is the same as saying there are no valid standards of morality.

          That is primitive. It is barbarism. 

          Well now, is some of the behavior at Gay Shame parades primitive?

          Readers, you decide.

          See AFTAH.ORG.

          • ChuckGG

            I have provided you with my opinion based upon my findings and experience.  I doubt there is anything more I can say.

            My father did teach me the fallacy of arguing with fools.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Have you seen the latest Angelina Jolie movie?  She was GREAT in “The Changeling”!

          • ChuckGG

            No, I have not seen the movie.  Not sure, how does that tie-in to this?

  • Headline: Barney Frank, husband discuss their wedding

    Does that make Barney the wife?

    • Tyke

      I think it makes you the south end of a north going horse — Jack.

    • Anonymous

      They’re both husbands. Is it that complicated to understand? And why do you think it is an insult or a good joke to refer to Barney as a woman? Do you have a problem with women too?

    • Joseph Willingham

      The man is the husband.  The woman is the wife.  If there are no women in the civil contract, then there are no wives.  It’s really very simple.

  • Anonymous

    This is my favorite sentence.

    “…anyone who disagrees with this new definition of marriage will potentially find themselves facing consequences.” 

    It is true.  I speak the truth when I say that most American homosexuals have a blind hatred towards Christians.  They feel that they must avenge the lost years where they were forced to hide their sexuality from society.  The forcing of Christianity to adapt, the inception of homophobia as a `hate crime`, and the receipt of protections and attentions above and beyond the rest of heterosexual society is what drives them to their goal.  You know it`s true.  Revenge.

    The redefinition of marriage will make Christianity and its followers the new outcasts of society.  Homosexuals in America are hellbent on seeing this happen.  As much as they claim to value their own rights, to deny others theirs speak volumes about what motivates them.  Power. 

    Give married homosexuals the benefits and the breaks, but make sure that they are not reaping the benefits to have heterosexual partners when no one is watching.  Adultery must be a serious crime.

    I don`t care for them raising children either.  I want my kids learning about sexuality from a base that explains the proper biological workings of the human body, not from some homosexual grooming them to be someone`s gay partner.  To me, homosexality is still an abomination, and to teach children about it should be considered sexual abuse and contributing to the deliquency of a minor.  I would argue that the school system may allow my child to not attend their sex education classes, but once one kid gets the ideation of homossexuality, it spreads like a wildfire. 

    • Anonymous

       One of the most ignorant comments I’ve read here.  For one thing, the majority of SSM supporters ARE Christians.  The majority of gay people I know are Christian.  Of the three gay-rights activists I’ve known, two were Christian (one was a pastor).   (The other is not but bears no animosity toward Christianity per se.)  Here in NJ, Christians and Jews have a high-profile role in gay-rights organizations.  The list of Christian and Jewish denominations that allow consecration of same-gender relationships has gotten quite long.  There are some high-profile gay-rights activists that are quite anti-Christian, but the notion that they represent all gay people is nonsense.  And the whole bit about them “grooming” kids to be somebody’s gay partner … like I said, complete nonsensical bigotry.

      • Anonymous

        “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” – Jesus. Calling yourself a “Christian” and actually being a disciple of Jesus Christ are two VERY different things, unfortunately.

    • Anonymous

      Do you know why ”
      anyone who disagrees with this new definition of marriage will potentially find themselves facing consequences”?  I’ll give you a hint: it’s the same reason that people who opposed interracial marriage faced “consequences”  I am a “gay” as you would call it and I do not have a blind hatred for Christianity.  I have a hatred of ignorance, bigotry, and stupidity, all of which you have demonstrated in your post.  As for LGBT parents “grooming them to be someone’s gay partner”, pesky little “facts” seem to get in the way of your assertion as every reputable psychiatric organization states that sexual orientation is not a choice.  
      And if you have a problem with children learning about “the gay” in school, send them to a private school.  As for silencing you, I urge you to go spout your crazy so that people can see the type of person who opposes LGBT people being treated equally.  You may have the right to believe being gay is an abomination, but I have every right to call you out on your bigotry.  

    • Please provide some actual evidence to support your supposition.

      And adultery “must be a serious crime”? It’s currently not a crime – you want to make it one? What is your definition? What should the punishments be? I’m just listening to a report from Afghanistan where a woman was shot 9 times in the head for adultery – reportedly by her husband.

      Is something like that what you envision?

    • Anonymous

      No, many gay people are Christians, so your self-victimization and lie that gay people hate Christians is just that…a lie. 

      • Anonymous

        Participating in a homosexual lifestyle and following Christ are polar opposites and cannot exist together. Not that Christians can’s sin, but if you don’t recognize homosexuality as the sexual perversion that is is (the same as pre-marriage hetero sex, adultery, etc.) you will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven. The Bible is VERY clear on this. I Corinthians 6:9 (NIV) – “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually
        immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual
        offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor
        swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

        • Anonymous

          Just an FYI that the Bible was written in an archaic form of Greek, and referenced practices dating back 2000 years ago.  Many scholars believe this passage refers to pederasty, with the word translated as “male prostitutes” referring to the young boys in those arrangements, and the word translated “homosexual offenders” referring to the adult males who had sex with them.  Even the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic translators of the Church’s own NAB Bible — hardly a pro-gay bunch with a reason to shine the spotlight on such practices involving men and young boys — acknowledge that this passage, along with Romans 1 and 1 Timothy 1 are likely about things like pederasty and temple prostitution.  It’s not nearly as clear as you think, once you’re aware of the translation issues and the historical context.

          • Anonymous

             Dave, my many years of theological study have led me to this view – http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf. Please take a minute to read a let me know if it changes your view of this verse. I was once of the same opinion as yourself, but through careful exegetical analysis came to my current view. 

          • Anonymous

             I actually believe I have read that piece before and, no, it didn’t change my view at all … I found the arguments very contrived and somewhat circular.  

          • Anonymous

             Ok. Thanks for having an open mind and reading it anyway. Blessings. :)

        • Anonymous

           And BTW — discussion of Christian beliefs on homosexuality are relevant to this topic only to the extent that the silly claim that Christians will be persecuted for their beliefs needed to be refuted.  What Christians of any particular denomination believe in religious terms is not particularly relevant to the issue of CIVIL marriage, as per the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

          • Anonymous

             But Dave, Christians already ARE persecuted for their beliefs in this matter. Here is a recent news story from Denmark – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html. If you don’t think this could happen here, you’re sorely mistaken.

          • Anonymous

             Not at all relevant to the situation in the US, where we have the protections embedded in the 1st Amendment. 

          • Anonymous

             See above.

          • Anonymous

             All the cases presented involved situations where churches and individual Christians crossed the line between private religious practice and public business or civil governmental interactions.  That’s not religious persecution …

          • Anonymous

             I don’t agree, I think that when people are forced to go against their beliefs, then that’s the definition of religious persecution.  But we already knew that. :)

          • Anonymous

             The rules have been pretty much the same for the past 50 years.  You don’t get to violate criminal laws by claiming religious freedom.  You DO get to violate civil rights laws in the context of your own private worship practices, but you DON’T get to extend that freedom to violate the civil rights of others into the public domain.  Them’s the rules, and have been for quite a long time.

          • Joseph Willingham

            So, what is to go against one’s religious beliefs?  Not performing a same-sex marriage-of course.  But what about not helping a gay person in your clothing store?  Not serving a gay customer at the burger place where you are an employee?  Not hiring gay people?  Not allowing a gay person to rent in your building?  Not treating a gay patient?
            Where do you draw the line?  I looks like, for some people, there is no line-gay people are simply against their religion and because of that they should be able to do whatever they want when it comes to gays, whether it’s denying service to a gay couple or rounding them up to let them die off.
            Is that really religious freedom?

          • Anonymous

            Unfortunately, the “not treating a gay patient” still happens
            http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/01/47019.htm 

          • Joseph Willingham

            I notice VincitVeritas didn’t answer….

          • Anonymous

            In the 1800’s, there were Christians who proudly pointed to Old and New Testament bible verses about slavery, and said that ending the practice of slavery in America would violate their religious beliefs.

            Would you agree that it wasn’t a violation of slaveholders’ religious freedom to deny them the ability to hold slaves even though their bible gave them permission?

          • Maine law already prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation. A peoples veto to appeal the law in 2005 lost 55% to 45%:

            See Title 5, Chapter 337.

          • Joseph Willingham

            All those religious freedoms being violated.  The shame!

          • Anonymous

            We’ve had gay marriage in parts of this country for almost 10 years, so the fact that you had to travel to Denmark to find one isolated example proves how far from the truth your claims are. 

            That could never happen here. Has the state ever stepped in and forced a church to perform a marriage for an interfaith couple? Or a couple with individuals who have previously been divorced? The answers to those questions are no and it would be no different with gay marriage.

          • Anonymous

             Oh how I wish you were right. The stories are coming in every day from the U.S. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

          • Joseph Willingham

            I know about the pavilion issue and I don’t think it’s right to allow a venue that is used by the public to be closed to a gay couple.  If it were the actual church, that’s a different story, but the fact that a church owns a property that the public can use puts that property in a different situation.
            I find it troubling that people think it’s okay to outright discriminate against other Americans under the guise of “religious freedom.”

          • Anonymous

             FYI, there were also renovations and maintenance done to that facility using public funds … another reason it was considered a public space, rather than a private worship space.

          • Anonymous

            I am right. A pavilion isn’t a church. Nice try though. You don’t get to have a business or provide service to the public and then discriminate. That’s against the law and that’s regardless of whether gay marriage is legalized or not. It isn’t legal to discriminate, period.

          • Anonymous

            THAT old lie again. There is not and never was a shred of religious persecution in the Ocean Grove Fish Camp case, and everybody knows there wasn’t. The tax exemption the church applied for SPECIFICALLY required that it be open to the public without discrimination. They then did not follow the agreement they had made. Their own fault, 100%, and nothing to do with persecution of any kind.

            My understanding is that they have since filed for and received a different kind of exemption, which does not come with that string attached. That’s what they should have done in the first place and the whole thing never would have happened.

            Meanwhile, it has nothing to do with legal marriage, because gay marriage was not legal in that time at that place to begin with, so even if the rest weren’t a distortion, that it was an example of what it’s always trotted out to be an example of (and it gets tiresome) would itself still be a lie.

            (That church’s religious position is also grossly immoral, but that is their right… so long as they don’t try to force anyone outside their organization and off their property to abide by it as you want to do.)

          • Anonymous

            Yes, because of course Denmark has the exact same legal system and Constitution as the United States, including, as one of its most cherished national values, the separation of church and state.

            Except, of course, they have no such thing. So if you’re going to cite that as an example of what supposedly will happen here, you need at least to provide a rationally based process by which that would occur, not just declare those who know better are “sorely mistaken.”

        • Anonymous

          Well that’s something else. Be more specific in your comments. Religion is a personal choice and people self-identify, so you don’t get to take that away from them. You may not believe they’re true Christians, that’s fine, but that’s all you have. They are Christians. 

          PS why are you using those wacky new translations? The term and concept of homosexuality didn’t exist when the Bible was written. Sounds like you’re the slanderer ;)

          • Anonymous

             Lol. :) “You can identify them (my followers) by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?” – Jesus. The fruit in this instance is evidenced by their not following the commands of Christ  – i.e. Matthew 19:4-6,
            “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’  and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” – Jesus.As for the NIV, we found the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts from the early church that led to a more accurate translation of original text.

          • Anonymous

            It doesn’t matter. Homosexuality didn’t exist as a word or a concept during that time. 

          • Anonymous

            Indeed. Now show where the Bible says this was a definition of the only way marriage may be.

            You can’t, because it doesn’t. That’s your interpretation and nothing more.

            Besides, Jesus was answering a question about *a man divorcing his wife.* Even setting aside what his audience would have been willing to hear, much less record, in that time and place, what reason would he have had to specify that gay couples were OK too?

            Amazing the lengths people will go to to try to get Jesus to have said things he never did… and also, very nearly proof in itself that your position in general is on shaky ground.

        • Anonymous

          You sound so very constipated. Christian, my foot.

        • Anonymous

          You’re in for a surprise if and when you get there.

        • Anonymous

          Rough definitions… 
          Christian: a person who accepts Jesus as Lord

          Homosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to member of his or her own sex instead of the opposite one.

          No conflict there.

        • Anonymous

          So a “homosexual lifestyle” is a sin that can not coexist with following Christ. Does that mean when people lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, covet…. all sins do those sinners not believe in or follow God? As a lifelong Christian I was raised to believe that we were all born with sin and can repent. Do you mean to say at all sinners are unable to believe in or follow God? You need to read the bible and maybe even have a good long talk with your religious leader.

        • Anonymous

          A lot of Christians have this misguided belief that the secret to going to heaven is believing in God and that Jesus Christ was his son and died to atone for our sins. But there are many verses in the Bible that state that one’s deeds determines admission. The biggest sin is actually hating another person.

          Jesus was dead silent on homosexuality. In fact, he told his followers to listen to the preachers, but not to engage in the same behaviors because the preachers (or “teachers”) were hypocrites.

          By the way, you have to understand that the detesting of homosexual behaviors was based on the belief at the time that everyone was heterosexual and chose to engage in homosexual behavior. now I ask you, when did you decide to be straight? I can’t, for the life of me, recall ever making my “decision” to be straight. And so far I haven’t been able to find anyone else who claims homosexuality can’t possibly be genetic to tell me when they chose to be straight.

          But I can tell you when I chose not to eat peas anymore. I threw up the first time I ate some. After that, I said “Yuck.”

          I can tell you when I decided I liked James Bond. And “Star Wars.” And why I like them. Those were personal choices.

        • Anonymous

          Get your head out of the sand:
          http://www.thechristianleft.org/ 

    • Anonymous

      Ok, I have to call BS with “homophobia as a hate crime” and “the receipt of protections…above and beyond the rest of heterosexual society”.

      I don’t think you’ll find “homophobia” listed as a hate crime.  As much as being ignorant should be criminal at times, I don’t think there are any laws against it. However, being beaten up or killed because you are gay IS a hate crime and should be. 

      But I believe the same would apply to a straight victim if the crime was committed simply because he or she was heterosexual.

      These laws are intended to protect people on the basis of sexual orientation.  Gays don’t have a corner on that…everybody has one.  And that’s where the “special rights” lies get shown for what they are.

      • Anonymous

        Minor quibble: “being beaten up or killed” is not a crime, hate or otherwise. Beating or killing some one is :)

        • Anonymous

          True that :)

      • Anonymous

        Go to any school today and see what it is like to be a gay student-those laws are there for them along with the many adults who face hostile work environments because of their sexuality or perceived sexuality.

    • Anonymous

      What ugly rock did you crawl out from under?   Ignorant SOB. 

      • Joseph Willingham

        “You know it’s true” is not a very sound argumentative strategy.

    • pbmann

      wow, just wow…..

    • Anonymous

      “I speak the truth when I say that most American homosexuals have a blind hatred towards Christians.”

      Ever heard of Andrew Sullivan? My guess is no.

    • David_in_Houston

      I have a blind hatred of people that use a personal “choice” to rationalize discriminating against other people. Your “choice” doesn’t give you (or your church) special authority over other people’s lives. Unless you intend to ban secular marriage (that takes place at city hall), you have no claim on marriage being solely a religious institution.

      No one is redefining marriage. Straight men will continue to marry straight women if gay couples can ALSO marry. Massachusetts has had marriage equality for over 8 years. Straight couples are still getting married there. Shocking, I know.

      Homosexuality is an abomination because you chose to believe it is. Beliefs aren’t facts. Facts can be proven. Our society has known for decades that human sexuality runs the gamut from straight to gay and everything in between. There is nothing immoral about a person’s sexual orientation. You also can’t “teach” someone to be gay. Sexual orientation is innate. No one is capable of changing their sexual orientation.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t even know where to begin with this… OK, most important first, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO truth to the claim that gay people “groom” children “to be someone’s gay partner.” The whole notion that being gay is something you are, or even can be, taught is ludicrous; beyond false into what cannot but be deliberate lies.

      As for “most American homosexuals” hating Christians, that too is a lie. Really. There have been surveys done (and no, I don’t keep a list handy; Pew probably has good ones if you really want to look) and a majority of gay people in America ARE Christians. There are, indeed, some gay people who are so bitter (and really, you cannot rationally blame them for being bitter about this) at the way people have blasphemously treated them in Christ’s name that they are like Mark Twain’s famous cat who wouldn’t sit even on a cold stove-lid, but it’s a lot fewer than you’d expect.

    • Anonymous

      You just don’t get it. Gay adults are the children of straight parents. Do you mean to say straight parents make gay children?

    • Anonymous

      It’s so convenient that your god hates the same things you do! 

    • Anonymous

      Exactly….if you are an undecided voter, and want to be “compassionate” and “loving” pay close attention to what you are hearing on this forum.

      Homosexuality good.

      Christianity bad.

      Gay marriage good.

      God bad. 

      Then ask yourself, where else have you heard such vicious mockery of Christ and Christianity? 

      How can such a movement not be criminal in nature? 

      • Anonymous

        If you doubt me, look up the demonic nature of Gay Shame parades.

        Read the first chapter of Romans, then look up the Gay Shame parades on AFTAH.ORG. 

        • Anonymous

          Actually they are quite fun!  All them cute guys walking around. ;)

      • Anonymous

        It’s not criminal because of free speech!

      • Joseph Willingham

        Hugs, brah.  You’re reading only what you want.  What you have listed is false.

  • Anonymous

    Do away with civil marriage and all the legal crap that goes along with it. Then allow anyone to marry anyone else in their own ceremony be it religious or otherwise. After all, we don’t need laws to protect children and women anymore. And, we certainly don’t need to invade people’s lives regarding who can know what about the one they live with as family or spouse.

    And, while we are at that end all inheritance taxes. Money/the estate of the deceased has already been taxed once and once is surely more than enough.

  • Your article is based on the erroneous premise that gay couples don’t or can’t parent. They often do and many times they perform better as parents than many straight people. You’re just wrong. Why you get to have this audience I really don’t know. 

    • Anonymous

      Martha I mentioned in an earlier post the uniqueness of gay parents is that they must really want to have a child in order to become a parent. It is time consuming, it is costly, and there a many disappointments along the way. I agree whole heartedly with you post. :)

  • Anonymous

    Thank you Mr. Emrich and may God bless you in your efforts to infuse sanity into this issue.

    • Anonymous

       Virtually every purported factual statement he made in support of his opinion about same-gender marriage was a distortion of the truth at best, and just plain false at worst.  If you really agree with his view, you’d be better off lending him a hand … because, as the many, many posts that present accurate information here show, he really needs help making his case.

    • Anonymous

      More like the opposite.

  • Anonymous

    Great Story BDN, the truth hurts, and no matter how hard people try to change minds, it’s not going to happen.  No for the 4th time, you don’t have to like it, but it’s the will of the voters again, and again, and again, and it will be again after the election!

    • Anonymous

      Why can’t people understand that you don’t get to vote on rights?

    • Anonymous

      We are not talking about sacramental marriage in a church, we are talking about state legal marriage. When you have a church marriage you still have to apply for a state marriage licence in order for your church marriage to be legally recognized. This will happen. Maybe not this year, but it will happen. People should not VOTE on civil rights issues. If they did we would still have only men allowed to vote, not mixed race marriage, and slavery would still be in effect.

  • Anonymous

    Marriage is a state function, not a religious ones.  How dare churches say marriage is only for the purpose of procreation.  What does that say to all the childless couples who can’t or chose not to procreate.  Does that make their marriage any less legitimate?

    Churches need to quit preaching hatred and intolerance.  If Jesus came
    back today he would be ashamed of what’s being done in his name. 

  • Anonymous

    If marriage is focused on connecting children to the people responsible for bringing them into the world, they why make divorce so easy? Why make it so easy for a parent to force another parent out through things like protection orders without a second witness or a police report to the same overt act? If we are supposed to be treated equal, then why is it only treason where one needs at least two witnesses to the same overt act? In cases a parent forces one parent to be homeless and get out of an area, and why make it civil and so hard to fight or attain a lawyer for defense?

    As you say, adults can define their own relationships etc., but if one is not married there are things a person cannot give to their partner that a married person can pass on, or cover as a member of a household, or visit in a hospital. As long as people deny people the same rights, there will be a political battle.

    How about no more marriages? If it is such a religious thing and such a religious argument and congress shall make not law respecting an establishment of religion, what place does marriage have in government anyway?

    Next it should be unlawful to teach evolution, unless their is permission from the parents?

    • Anonymous

      Unfortunately, bills before too many legislatures may bring that last sentence to a head.

  • Matthew 5:32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adultress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
    Bob Emrich was a pastor in Sangerville, ME. he was asked to leave his post following a scandel with himself and a female parishoner who was not his wife. This is a face although his children will deny it it. Dont fault them. He ahs lied to them also.
    It is also rumored. from a very reliable source, that his wife then came out of the closet (after the divorce) Bob has remarried. So his children must be a mess?
    Judge not lest ye be judged the same in the eyes of the Lord.  Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    Please do your own research. Children of SS marraiges (which have been around for 11 years in some countries) are as well as or more than well adjusted as their OS counterparts.
    SSM is back by the American Med Assoc., the American Academy of Pediatrics and almost all other proffesioal organizations. This includes Exodus who has agreed that Reparative therapy is non effective and harmful.

  • Anonymous

    Obvious political ad, given the holdover “Yes on 1” poster.  Shouldn’t he have paid for this instead?

  • Anonymous

    He’s right ya know.

    • Anonymous

      NO, I don’t know that, please explain it to me!

  • Anonymous

    The RIGHTS OF CHILDREN must be recognized, established, and protected. They deserve to be with their biological parents, and those parents need to shoulder their responsibility to their children. Bob Emrich has it right in his opinion.

    • Anonymous

      Because children would be much better off with their abusive, heterosexual, biological parents than they would be with a caring gay couple… 

    • Joseph Willingham

      What if the couple doesn’t want kids?

      What if the couple can’t have kids?

      What if the couple is of two people who have kids from prior marriages?
      What if the couple adopt?

      Or are those only a concern if the couple is gay?

    • Anonymous

      Just because couples can reproduce, doesn’t automatically make them capable of being good parents.  Your post fails to take that into account.  There are far too many kids getting by in spite of their parents, rather than because of them.

  • Anonymous

    Please note that Bob Emrich is one of the guys who travels to Africa to “spread the word of God” and pushes legislation that criminalizes homosexuality along with harsh punishments. One proposal in Uganda includes the death penalty for repeat offenders. 

    Is this really someone we should be listening to in regards to morality and what’s right for our society?

    • Joseph Willingham

      Here is this: http://www.glaad.org/cap/bob-emrich

      and his rebuttal: http://www.twitpic.com/t1zzp/full

    • Anonymous

      Keep it civil and stay on topic
      No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
      People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

      • Anonymous

        My comment is civil and on topic. There is no vulgarity, name-calling or personal attacks in it. I’m not harassing you or joking about a tragedy either. I’m pointing out the truth in the matter and that is that someone who supposedly is the voice of morality is also the voice of criminalizing homosexuality in other countries, including harsh punishments such as the death penalty. 

        • Joseph Willingham

          Yeah, that was a weird response.  

          Especially when I NEVER see those who oppose us call out their own when they say hateful and hurtful things about gay people.

          • Anonymous

            Ironic, isn’t it? They screech victimhood when you speak out against their hateful words and actions.

    • Anonymous

      God must be mighty proud of him, then…not.

  • pbmann

    So only people who want to have children should be allowed to marry, as long as they are heterosexuals?

    • Joseph Willingham

      Sounds like special rights to me.  I hope Mike Heath’s NO SPECIAL RIGHTS Pac is going after these people!!!!

    • Anonymous

      I’m just saying a good parent or a good set of parents does not depend on their sex or sexuality.

      • pbmann

        I agree with you that being a good parent is not dependant on their sex nor their sexual preference.

  • Anonymous

    More and more gay singles and couples are adopting the children that heterosexuals throw away. Gay couples tend to adopt and foster children that are older, have medical issues, and behavioral issues that heterosexual couples deem unfit. Moreover in order for a homosexual to become a parent there needs to be an intense desire and drive to do so.

  • Anonymous

    If gays are such a parenting dilemma maybe heterosexuals should care for the children they make and/or adopt/foster the hundreds of thousands of children who are currently without a home in the US.

    • Joseph Willingham

      And they should stop having gay kids!!!

      • Anonymous

        What are heterosexual couples doing “wrong” to produce gay kids?

      • Anonymous

        Regular Joe the great news is that your thinking is becoming more and more antiquated and irrelevant. I along with many other Christians believe that your commentary and behavior here is more sinful than same sex couples.

        • Anonymous

          I think you’ve misunderstood something somewhere along the line. You two are arguing from the same side throughout this thread.

          • Anonymous

            We really are not. I am pro family be it single, straight, gay, foster- as long as there is love and the child/children are raised to be thoughtful, caring, upstanding individuals. My comment about what are heterosexuals doing wrong to make gay kids was sarcasim.

          • Anonymous

            As was the one it’s a reply to.

          • Joseph Willingham

            Exactly!  My own straight parents produced a gay kid!  AND they did nothing wrong. Well, they wouldn’t get cable so that I could watch MTV (back when they had videos) but still….

          • Anonymous

            Ah ha!  I can just hear them now, Joe, “It says in Chapter…Verse…, that not having access to MTV…” Funny.   

        • Joseph Willingham

          My thinking is that gay people, like myself, should be allowed to marry the consenting adult that they love.  What’s antiquated about that?

          What you read from me sometimes is sarcasm or using points from the other side that show how ridiculous that way of thinking is.

          Please read more from me, or anyone else here, before you start making accusations.

          • Anonymous

            My apologies!

          • Joseph Willingham

            No problem!

        • Anonymous

          Here are some Christians you are surely NOT familiar with:

          http://www.thechristianleft.org/

  • Anonymous

    “Social science is chock full of data showing that when kids lack either a mother or a father, they suffer.”I notice there was no data actually cited, just the mention that it existed. If social science was “chock full of data” it should be easy to find and offer in support of the argument.

    • Anonymous

      Sociologists Stacey and Timothy Biblarz of the University of Southern California, spent five years reviewing 81 studies of one- and two-parent families, including gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples. “No research supports the widely held conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being,” they conclude.
      “Children being raised by same-gender parents, on most all of the measures that we care about, self-esteem, school performance, social adjustment and so on, seem to be doing just fine and, in most cases, are statistically indistinguishable from kids raised by married moms and dads on these measures,” Biblarz says.

    • Anonymous

      n a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.
      “There’s no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful” as children with a male and a female parent .

    • Anonymous

       The social-science research he is probably referring to is the same research that the Focus on the Family folks tried to point to in their testimony before Congress.  And it’s true that there is a lot of research that shows kids raised in a stable household by their biological parents fare better than kids raised under other circumstances WHEN those other kids are considered in aggregate.  But it says absolutely NOTHING about how individual sub-populations within that group do.  If you really want to know specifically how kids raised by same-gender parents fare, you have to tabulate and analyze statistics about that specific group … something that the studies referred to by anti-SSM groups don’t do.  (And, as has been noted, studies that do look specifically at kids raised by same-gender parents really don’t point to any particular problems.)  The Focus on the Family folks looked like complete idiots before Congress for their mangling of basic statistics (intentional or otherwise), and you’d think that people like Pastor Emrich would have learned something from their mistakes.

    • Joseph Willingham

      When you use the technical term “Chock Full,” that is all you need.  There is no need for any kind of scientific back up.

      MMmmmm….chock full.  You know, chock full o’ nuts is that heavenly coffee.  A better coffee a millionaire’s money can’t buy!

  • Anonymous

     I wish I could communicate just how many times I have read the Bible, stranger on the internet! Lol! :) “As a lifelong Christian I was raised to believe that we were all born
    with sin and can repent. Do you mean to say at all sinners are unable
    to believe in or follow God?” That’s SO true, so in light of that, consider these words of Jesus. “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3). So the punishment for sin is death, unless we repent? On that we can agree, I think. Just to clarify, forgiveness is not ours unless we seek it with repentance. So the denial of something as a sin would lead to a non-repentance, no? If I were to say, I don’t believe that adultery is a sin, does it make adultery less of a sin? No, it merely hardens my heart and means I will never repent of something I don’t believe is an issue. It is our job as the church to call out sin as sin lest we blur the lines as in this case. For it is written, “But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble,it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.

    • Anonymous

      You have every right to your religious beliefs, but please keep them out of government.

    • Anonymous

      Ahh, but we are simply asking for fair and equal access to the important protections of civil marriage.

      Do you lobby to have divorce banned? Adultery made a crime? If not, can we agree that it’s possible for our government to be neutral in enforcing your spiritual beliefs, and that’s okay?

    • Anonymous

       When did the USA elect G_d as president and replace the US Constitution with the Bible or any other book of religious writings?

  • Anonymous

    Emerich, keep your religious mythology in your church and home and OUT of public policy.  What two consenting adults do is a private matter and absolutely not for you to judge nor none of your business.  Butt out.  Also, what children need in their lives are love and caring whether the parents be same-sex or heterosexual.  Every study proves this.  Enough of your mythological fear mongering.

  • Anonymous

    Well said, Rev. Emrich.

    • Joseph Willingham

      He did convey his untruthful messages pretty well, sure.  But for facts, I think he scored a 0.0.

  • Anonymous

    Tolerance is a two way street.  I am not anti-gay marriage, I actually have several lesbian friends and a gay cousin in a committed relationship with his partner.  I simply do not understand how people can cry for acceptance and tell us how hard it is to be hated, then turn right around and attack others for their beliefs…IMHO, it makes you a hypocrite.

    • Joseph Willingham

      I am not sure who you are responding to, but if you are talking about how some gay people are intolerant of some religious people, please keep in mind that not every gay person is like that.  There is a sizable number of gay people who are religious and some who are even clergy.  

      • Anonymous

        I certainly don’t mean all….it is just become such a common theme and not just on this issue.  I am tired of hearing I disagree with someone, I must be racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc etc etc….When it becomes a hate crime to have a differing opinion and state it in public, the constitution is truly dead.

        • Joseph Willingham

          I understand what you’re saying.  Not everyone automatically assumes that those who oppose SSM is a “hater.”  Unfortunately, in the experience of many of us, there is a huge overlap.

    • Anonymous

      If I believed I had the right to hit you with a baseball bat, would it be hypocritical of you to attack me for my belief??  Virtually all of the hostility aimed at people personally opposed to SSM would go away if those folks weren’t working so hard to enshrine their personal beliefs in laws that do tangible harm to same-gender couples and their families.  The two situations are not at all the same.

      • Anonymous

        My belief is that hostility does not belong in politics and this is currently a political issue going before the voters.  It is a time for sharing of information & as much public goodwill as possible.  Attacking anyone for disagreeing with you will only strengthen the other side as it gives them the moral high ground in their eyes.

        • Anonymous

          But you’re refusing to admit how barring gay people from marriage, adoption, whatever else, etc. is actually harmful and hostile in itself. Barring a set of people from equal rights is an attack in itself.

          OldeDaveNJ makes a good point. Yes, you’re allowed to have an opinion and act on it, but you have to admit when it is at the detriment of others. It’s not simply a matter of disagreement here. We’re talking about the right to marry.

      • Anonymous

        Have you ever been treated like you have a disease or been threatened with losing custody of your child/children or your job may be in jeopardy because of who you love?  Have you ever been threatened bodily harm because of who you love?  Reality Dave, Reality … not my personal “beliefs…… so easy for so many who just don’t get it…. ah yes we are protected by current laws.

        • Anonymous

          I haven’t personally experienced any of those things because I happen to be a straight person in a straight marriage.  But I do know same-gender couples that have experienced all those forms of discriminatory and threatening actions from anti-gay individuals and employers.  That is the reality … and no, same-gender couples are not adequately protected by current laws … not even close.

          • Anonymous

            Sorry Dave my above post was supposed to be in reply to JK75……

  • Tom Brown III

    the bible thumpers are out en-mass on this one.

    Too bad we never see these people leading “crusades” against domestic violence and child abuse.

    • Anonymous

      I suspect the reason is they are too busy participating in domestic violence and child abuse to lead a crusade against it.  And they wonder why most people find them so phoney.

  • Anonymous

    Pastor Emrich fails to mention that Lucie and Annie, Jim and Steve, are married because they too have children.  He fails to say that there are lots of John and Mary married couples with no children and no plans to have any.

    But Emrich’s biggest mistake?  Saying Lucie and Annie, Jim and Steve are “genderless”  parents.  These couples have genders and their children do too.

    Grow up Pastor.  Stop trying to pass bigotry off as piety.

  • Anonymous

    Dear ‘Pastor’ Bob Emrich if you were truly concerned about the sanctity of marriage we would all be voting on banning divorce in this state come November- but we’re not voting on banning divorce are we?  No we are not.  Why not pastor?  How come we aren’t voting on banning divorce come this November?

    You mention divorce, adultery and co-habitation as being…ahh yes…. the ‘short comings’ of the institution….think any of those things have a negative impact on a child? and by the way aren’t ALL of those things also listed in the bible as being bad, bad things?  Yet people do them everyday and don’t think twice about how it will affect their children. People are married and divorced and remarried and divorced and remarried etc., etc., ‘just a short coming’ you say? RIGHT.  We have some 410,000 children in foster care in this country(look it up)- why?  Because their heterosexual parents are not suitable for caring for them and let’s just be honest for a moment shall we…same sex couples do not have unwanted or unplanned children by accident do they?  

    You state ‘In other states (other countries are irrelevant) we’ve seen churches lose their tax exemptions’ WHERE/WHY??  ‘ministers hauled before Human Rights commissions’ WHERE/WHY?? ‘charitable groups forced to end their ministries’ WHERE/WHY??  ‘small businesses sued’ WHERE/WHY?? ‘professionals losing their licenses’ WHERE/WHY?? and of course the old ‘and gay marriage taught to very young children in public school in a manner that gives parents no rights to prior notice or to opt them out of such instruction’ WHERE/WHY??  it is so easy to make reference to events and claim they have happened but offer no actual evidence that cites what it is you are referring to- in essence one is free to make up whatever information one wants to conjure up in order to support their agenda- which more often than not have zero veracity to them…..thus it is simple to lie.

    If you and your group ‘protect Maine marriage’ truly cared and were being honest about ‘protecting marriage’ you would be pushing to have divorce banned in  this state, but you’re not are you ‘pastor?’  Instead you deflect focus on what’s really wrong with the institution of marriage and blame same sex couples who want to marry by claiming same sex marriage will somehow ‘ruin children and redefine marriage’ ….this all sounds exactly like the anti- miscegenation laws that were repealed by SCOTUS in 1967.  There will always be some people who will never evolve beyond the bare minimum needed not to drag their knuckles……you’re dragging your knuckles ‘pastor.’

  • Anonymous

    Emrich’s logic is in serious disarray here.

    He is right that marriage helps children in a family. This is a very good reason why we should extend civil marriage protections to same-sex couples!

    I personally know a couple of gay couples raising children in Maine, and they would very much like to have civil marriage.

    Children in same-sex households come from previous marriages, children born out of wedlock, adoptions, or artificial insemination/surrogates.

    In a perfect world, no child would ever see their parents divorce, die, or neglect them to the point where they must go into foster care. But we don’t live in a perfect world. Far, far better for us to encourage more married relationships for raising children, than deny those important rights simply because we don’t agree with the people who make up the family.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you Bob for standing firm and true.

  • Anonymous

    He is standing firm to his beliefs, but the true part, not so much.

  • Anonymous

    If having children together is such a primary focus for religious marriage, why isn’t there any mention of it in the traditional wedding vows?

    The vows I always here talk about support and love between the couple being married, until death do they part— nothing at all about making babies, raising them, etc.

    Besides, gay couples all over the place are raising children. There is nothing about homosexuality that renders anyone incapable of procreation. Nor does it seem that marriage is a prerequisite for having children— unwed mothers give birth all the time, too.

    Let’s vote in favor of allowing ALL Maine families the important protections of civil marriage, so that more Maine children are protected!

    • Joseph Willingham

      I think we’re all supposed to be just basically breeding stock…

  • Anonymous

    Once again you miss the point.  The original poster was saying that instead of worrying about same sex marriage, Mr. Emmerson should worry about protecting children from real threats, like pedophiles.  You are the one that related pedophila to homosexuality, when they are two separate things.  You are the one that can’t seem to see the difference between a consenting relationship and child abuse.

  • Anonymous

    For something different, a change, Google First Scandal.  It’s relevant.  And it really is all about sex.

  • Anonymous

    Pastor Bob Emrich approaches the issue of interracial marriage from a predictable perspective — the desires of  interracial couples ‘Louis and Annie’ and ‘Jim and Stephanie.’ Long an advocate of interracial marriage, the paper naturally waxes on about the importance of these adults being able to do as they wish — change the definition of same race marriage to accommodate their interracial relationships.
    The debate is not whether interracial couples should be able to live as they wish or love whom they choose. But same race marriage is about far more than what adults want for themselves. It’s about what children need.
    Same race marriage provides in large part a mechanism to provide for the next generation. It is society’s natural bond with children. It says to children that we as a community have recognized a structure, the institution of same race marriage, that is uniquely focused on connecting children to the same race people responsible for bringing them into the world — their same race parents. Indeed, same race marriage is our only institution that is focused on children in this way.
    Were it not for the interests of children, society (read, government) would have no interest in same race marriage at all. Adults do not need a social institution to “recognize” their relationships. Adults are able to reach their own agreements, to negotiate their own relationship terms and to decide for themselves how they will handle their relationships. But children are not so fortunate.
    Children need the love of both their same race mother and their father. Social science is chock full of data showing that when kids lack either a same race mother or a father, they suffer. They have more mental and physical health problems, they are more likely to be raised in poverty, they have less educational attainment, and they are more prone to delinquency and criminal activity, among many other problems.
    The institution of  same race marriage is our way of trying to bond children with their same race parents so that they have the benefit of the love and support of their same race parents. Does the institution fail too frequently to accomplish this? Yes, tragically. And when it does, then government is left to pick up the pieces. But there is no government on the planet with the know-how and resources to fully compensate for the breakdown of the same race family.
    The shortcomings of the institution of same race marriage (divorce, co-habitation, adultery, etc.) are no reason to abandon same race marriage. Rather, we should be strengthening same race marriage by devoting resources — in churches, in schools and in nonprofit agencies and departments of government — to creating a thriving same race marriage culture in our state and nation.
    The Bangor Daily News joins with backers of interracial marriage to attempt to make same race marriage a political issue. It isn’t. Same race marriage wasn’t created by government; it was merely recognized by government. There is nothing political about marriage in the least. And in making it a political issue, the paper and interracial marriage advocates (really, they are one and the same), seek to set up a straw-man confrontation with anyone who opposes redefining same race marriage.
    For example, the paper mischaracterizes the issue of how interracial marriage will be taught in the public schools if it is redefined. The campaign supporting same race marriage did not argue in 2009, nor are we arguing now, that state law requires that interracial marriage be taught in the schools. What we have argued is that when interracial marriage is taught in school, it will be a new colorless version of marriage, one that is at odds with the religious, moral and personal beliefs of many Mainers and one that is forced on children over the objections of their same race parents.
    There are many consequences to society when same race marriage is redefined. Interracial marriage would not exist in the law alongside same race marriage. The initiative petition redefines same race marriage for everyone. And anyone who disagrees with this new definition of marriage will potentially find themselves facing consequences. In other states and countries we’ve seen churches lose their tax exemptions, ministers hauled before Human Rights commissions, charitable groups forced to end their ministries, small businesses sued, professionals losing their licenses and — yes — interracial marriage taught to very young children in public school in a manner that gives same race parents no rights to prior notice or to opt them out of such instruction.
    Maine law already provides substantial legal protections for interracial couples “Louis and Annie” and “Jim and Stephanie. If there was a need to address specific problems that interracial couples like these face, the Legislature was able to do so. But we should not redefine same race marriage simply because of empathy for the desires of interracial couples.  Welcome to 1967 Pastor Emrich.

    • Anonymous

      I don’t think I can like this comment enough!

  • Anonymous

    Does the writer consider childless couples having LESS of a right to marriage than those who have children?

    Either way, the perspective is incoherent to our American ideals, because a basic right is a basic right is a basic right – no proof necessary for access to those rights. Marriage IS a right. No other basic right (freedom of religion, speech, voting, right to bear arms, etc.) is either gender or sexual orientation dependent, because a right is a right is a right, and it must be proven justifiable and reasonable to restrict that right or withhold it fromany minority or group or person. No reason to NOT use this rationale when considering the issue of gays having access to marriage.

    With the ongoing and increasing understanding of sexual orientation, and given the amount of legal precedence regarding marriage being a “basic civil right” of “free men in their pursuit of happiness,” it is becoming more and more difficult for “states” to prove via due process their case in restricting the right of marriage to gays.

    SCOTUS has already declared marriage to be “fundamental” and a “basic civil right.” Keep in mind, following what nearly all mainstream experts support, being gay is FAR less of a choice than the choice of one’s religion.

    IN THAT VEIN, how do gays access this fundamental and basic civil right without
    pretending to not be gay? 
      
    The basic civil right of marriage itself is affirmed a number times via SCOTUS decisions:

    From the Zablocki v. Redhail ruling:

    “Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

    (…I’ll point it out…”FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS.”)

    Furthering the point, the ruling continues:

    “When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.”

    Add Griswold v. Connecticut to the mix. A ruling about contraception, not procreation:

    “Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.” Notice – “promotes…a harmony in living, not commercial or social projects.” 

    Also extremely relevant to this debate, America has never imposed any legal requirement or mandate of procreation in determining whether people are allowed to marry. The SCOTUS decision with Safley v. Turner highlights that even a convicted life fellon with no parole and no conjugal visits was still entitled to the “basic civil right” of marriage. Yet procreation now matters only with gays? This argument relies on a willful double standard that screams of hypocrisy while it exposes the weak camouflage of bigotry. I’ll ask the intial question again, does the writer feel that childless straight couples have LESS of a right to marriage than those with children?

    This brings the point home, the more courts understand and recognize the innate
    charateristic of sexual orientation, the less likely they are to permit gays
    being restricted from marriage.

    Because a basic right is a basic right is a basic right.

    • Anonymous

      One can hold the opinion that marriage is only a religious institution, however that perspective cannot stand against the reality that marriage lies beyond the realm of religion and is wholly and legally branded as basic civil right “for all individuals” irrespective of religious views (or lack thereof).

  • Anonymous

    See the movie The Changeling, about the WINEVILLE CHICKEN COOP murders.

    You will never look at homosexuality and the homosexual rights movement the same way again.

    What do John Wayne Gacy, Juan Corona, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, and Gordon Northcott all have in common?

    “ooooh, he’s a hater” “he’s a hater”

    Why don’t you just answer the question instead, and explain why 63% of serial killers are homosexuals?

    • Anonymous

      If homosexuality is normal and good, why do homosexuals have  an average lifespan which is much shorter than homosexuals?

      And why do you lie about the Bible?

      Everything about  the SSM-gay-homosexual-UFO-Pogo the Clown Marriage movement is a lie. 

      When anyone tries to tell the truth about the homosexual lifestyle, he is called a “hater,” is censored, or is merely shouted down.

      Why are these statistics forbidden?

      And now you want access to little boys through adoption?

      I don’t think so. 

      • Joseph Willingham

        Are you asking yourself these questions?

        I think most people can see through your silly attempts at asking loaded questions in a effort to cast doubt on the gay community.
        Shorter lifespans?  If that’s the case, it could be due to being surround by people accusing them of wanting “to access little boys through adoption.”
        Nice try, though.

      • Anonymous

        When the “truth’ comes from anti-gay bigots with an ax to grind, we generally have to take your so called “statistics” with a grain of salt, especially when every reputable psychiatric assiociation says the complete opposite.

        • Joseph Willingham

          They say the opposite because either they have been infiltrated by the gays or they have caved in to the gay mafia to hide those forbidden statistics.  There’s always a simple explanation.

          • Anonymous

            Is the gay mafia the one that sneaks into people’s houses at night and redecorates?  If so, then where do I sign up!

          • Anonymous

            I think that may be the Gay Army Yodelers (aka GAY) who redecorate!!

          • Anonymous

            Can I sign up for the gay mafia?  It sounds FABULOUSSSSS!

          • Anonymous

            I’m in.

      • Anonymous

        Ummmm you’re clearly someone in need of some serious mental health assistance.  That being said what is the ratio of heterosexual pedophiles as opposed to homosexual pedophiles?  It’s 11:1 which simply explained to you means that for every 1 homosexual pedophile there are 11 heterosexual pedophiles running around……so in actuality children are victimized by heterosexual people far more often than they are by none heterosexual people……and I can cite my information: Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto, Ont. Canada.

    • Joseph Willingham

      Yay!  He’s back!!!

      It’s been too long since we’ve been told about how murders in 1920’s Los Angeles is why same sex marriage should be illegal!
      I just LOVE that Angelina Jolie!

    • Anonymous

      So by your logic, because people like Ted Bundy and Jack the Ripper were heterosexual, we should not have heterosexual marriage.

      • Joseph Willingham

        No, because they weren’t gay.

        Then again, he did mention Ted Bundy, so who knows what he’s trying to say.
        I think the take home point is “GO SEE THE CHANGELING!  ANGELINA JOLIE ROCKS!”

        • Anonymous

          I agree, it was a really good movie!

      • Anonymous

        Ted Bundy frequented the bath houses in Seattle. We have no information on Jack the Ripper in this regard.

        Now what about John Wayne Gacy, Juan Corona, and Gordon Northcott?

        Not all homosexuals are serial killers, but most serial killers are homosexuals. 

        • Anonymous

          Ah yes, how could I be so blind as to think that two men who raped and murdered women were straight! You have shown me the error of my ways!

        • Anonymous

          Cite where you get your ‘information’ from.

        • Joseph Willingham

          The vast majority of spousal killings are among heterosexuals.

    • Anonymous

      Cite where you obtained your information…..let me guess Liberty University or NARTH?   Pfffffffft.

    • Anonymous

      ‘Serial killers are nearly always men (93%). Furthermore, of the relatively few female serial killers, one third of them worked in partnership with males.
      In the United States, serial killers are predominantly white. This makes sense statistically, because about 80% of the population is white. According to some sources, whites are over-represented and African-Americans are under-represented among serial killers, but this depends on how one defines a “serial killer.” The more celebrated, headline-grabbing serial killers are generally white, but if one counts all perpetrators of multiple homicides, including drug- and gang-related killings, then African-Americans account for between 20% to 30% of all multiple perpetrators, according to statistics compiled by the FBI. African-Americans comprise about 13% of the total U.S. population. Asians, who comprise probably under-represented among American serial-killers. Asian serial-killers are extremely rare in the United States, but Asians comprise only about 4% of the U.S. population so, statistically speaking, one would expect few Asian serial killers. There have been some high-profile Filipino serial killing and murder cases. Filipinos comprise a relatively newer and less affluent immigrant population relative to other major Asian groups in the United States.
      Although the proportion of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experience is high (over 43%), the total number of serial killers is too small to make statistically relevant statements about whether homosexuals are over- or under-represented among serial killers. [Click here for source, related studiesand statistics.]
      Also, it should be noted that many of the homosexual serial killers on this list were not active members of the Gay & Lesbian cultural community.Many of the most famous serial killers (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, etc.) were homosexuals, but they became widely known due to the nature of their crimes or the identities of their victims, not because they in any way represent serial killers generally.’  (and I can CITE my information http://www.adherents.com)

      • Anonymous

        Ha,ha…homosexuals make up 2-3% of the population, they represent 63% of the serial killers, but there is no correlation, and homosexuality is ‘normal.’

        It’s amazing what liars the American people have become. 

        • Anonymous

          Your stats are WRONG so Ha ha….CITE your information. Otherwise you are pulling numbers out of your rear end.

        • Joseph Willingham

          Yes.  It’s amazing to read your lies.  Bold and blatant and amazing.

    • Anonymous

      Okay, I’ll answer the question:

      You’re lying.

Similar Articles