Opponents face off in debate on gay marriage

old trucker
I don't give a rats ass about gay marrage I don;t ev en believe in strait marrige
But thats not why I'm here. I'm here to help pets, DONT LET THEM RUN LOOSE. Its not fair to them.
This morning I had to dispose of a beutaful calico kitten. She died right in frount of my kitchen window. She was a ferrol, but she would approach you. I can't descibe the pain I felt, but even though she was ferral. I'm going to love her, she deservs that.
Now try telling me that truckers have no feelings. nuff said

I will honestly admit that I have NOT read threw the entirety of this article. Nor have I read EVERY comment in response. However, the reaction of Jackie Young is RARE, and recognition of such a fair, non-judgemental, SELFLESS person MUST be recognized! It's the reaction I PRAY that will SOMEDAY engulf the lives of ALL people. I am a Lesbian woman. My partner and I share four children, ages ranging from 6 to 12. We function in a small community, and blend well in our neighborhood. Last christmas, Lexine asked me to marry her, and we have since been making those plans. Recently, my dress was purchased and it is a perfect fit for our 1920's themed ceremony. I have digested the fact that our ceremony will most likely be just that, because a WEDDING just doesnt seem plausable. It doesnt seem plausable BECAUSE, instead of protecting our childrens education, as well as children who are being neglected, abused, raped and molested DAILY, opponents would rather devote MASSIVE amounts of money to "protect marriage in Maine". BUT, what exactly are you PROTECTING??? In order for a gay or lesbian to have a child, to have a FAMILY, it must be PLANNED. No gay man or lesbian woman ACCIDENTALLY gets pregnant. Does that mean we are unworthy of marriage simply because we can't "knock eachother up" and procreate the "traditional" way. PLEASE! I would MUCH rather know that ALL FAMILIES MATTER and that Gay and Lesbian couples are FAR more likely to adopt a TEENAGER who would otherwise NOT HAVE A CHANCE! Not have a chance BECAUSE a "traditional" family would MUCH RATHER carry on their OWN blood line! Marriage is about the growth of a family! The expansion of individuality, where one becomes 2-3-4-5-6 .... A marriage is a celebration of LOVE. And the last I checked, the definition of love is endless and pretty much indescribeable! How can we take Leviticus seriously, and yet talk about Same Sex Marriage abomination over some Lobster! Or better yet, why dont we stone ALL cheating husbands and wives?
This is an endless debate. One of which I RARELY fall victim to. All of which I have said probably has no meaning to the majority of people reading this. I will end with this and ask you a very simple question. My family will still be here even IF the bill is rejected. My children will STILL associate with your children, and your children will be taught threw children with homosexual parents, that ALL familys MATTER. If you chose to WASTE THOUSANDS, MILLIONS of dollars on MY life, then who are YOU hurting? Your hate is effecting YOU more then me. My question is this .... Why does MY homosexuality effect YOU?? Im the sinner, right? So, unless you are the creator, judgment itself IS a sin! 1 corinthians 5:6 Just as a little leaven in bread quickly spreads completely through the dough, one "little" sin affects our whole being. As James points out, if we break one commandment, we are guilty of breaking the whole law. One sin begets another unless the chain is broken through repentance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-m8DeugA0&feature=player_embedded

I think those seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage are forgetting how selfish this is. One of the strongest reasons to oppose same-sex marriage is the children who will grow up in these relationships. Here is some good info to research:

list of reports on the subject:
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

"In every area of life, cognitive, emotional, social, developmental ... at every phase of the life cycle ... social evidence shows that there are measurable effects when children lack either a mother or a father. ... The evidence is overwhelming. Mountains of evidence, collected over decades, show that children need both mothers and fathers."

The report lists 56 such studies, including research done by the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. Department of Justice, University of Chicago and peer-reviewed publications that appeared in the Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of Social Services Research, and the American Sociological Review.

and more info:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0090.html

Exposure to both sexes is vitally important to the developmental needs of children because it helps them to form their sexual identity, but there are many more areas where children are affected by the parenting of a mother and father. Researcher Henry Biller, who has written several books on the subject, explains some of the key areas:

"Even if the father and mother behave in generally similar ways, they provide contrasting images for the infant ... Mothers and fathers have different verbal styles when communicating ... Involved fathers are more likely to stimulate the infant to explore and investigate new objects whereas mothers tend to engage their infants in relatively pre-structured and predictable activities ... The father and mother offer the child two different kinds of persons to learn about as well as providing separate sources of love and support. ..."

According to science, there are hundreds of nuances about men and women that even newborn infants can readily distinguish and that make a difference in the way the child develops.

"Marriage" was started by God himself, lets not tamper with Gods work .

MARRIAGE, MARRIAGE CUSTOMS The joining together of male and female in matrimony, as practiced by various cultures.

The idea of marriage was ordained by God in his instruction to Adam that a man should leave his father and mother, and that he and his wife should be as one flesh (Gn 2:24).

Yes, this boils down to whats right.

I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WATCH THIS LIVE ON UPSTREAM AND CHAT. IT WAS GREAT. SJ DID A GREAT JOB WITH EVERYTHING.

OVER AND OVER AGAIN-ITS STATED THAT THIS LAW IS VERY DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE FROM THE DISCRIMINATION LAW AND FAMILY LAW. UNDER THE MARRIAGE LAW THERE IS SPECIFIC PROTECTION FOR THE CHURCH. EVERY ASPECT AND DOUBT IS ADDRESSED. SHENNA BELLOWS SAID "it affirms religious freedom by specifically stating explicitly in the law that no religious institution, indeed no individual, no notary of the public or attorney, no person authorized to marry two people would have to participate in same-sex marriage, honor, solemnize or recognize same-sex marriage". YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMEONE DO SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO... I AGREE WITH THAT. CHURCH AND STATE SHOULD BE SEPARATE. THIS IS CLEARLY DEFINED AND STATED IN THE LAW.

I LOVED IT WHEN SHENNA BELLOWS SHOWED US THIS MAYBE FOUR SENTENCE PARAGRAPH OUT OF THE WHOOOOLE CHILDRENS BOOK 'WHO'S IN A FAMILY' THAT TALKED ABOUT, IN GENERAL-FAMILIES AND THE DIVERSITY OF FAMILIES (THAT SOME PEOPLE AND THAT SCARE TACTIC COMMERCIAL HAS MADE A STINK ABOUT) THE BOOK TALKED ABOUT ALL FAMILIES-SINGLE PARENT, GRANDPARENT HEADED HOMES, ANIMALS EVEN. ALL THE PARAGRAPH SAID WAS IT TAKES FOUR OF THEM TO WASH THEIR DOG. HELLO! I THINK SHENNA WAS A GOOD SPEAKER AND SHE MADE SENSE NOT ONLY ABOUT EQUALITY, BUT CIVIL LEGAL RIGHTS. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE TOPIC 101 IN SCHOOL. AND FOR PARENTS WHO CAN'T TALK TO THEIR KIDS ABOUT THEIR OWN BELIEFS AND BELIEFS ABOUT MARRIAGE-WHEN IS THE RIGHT TIME? IF HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS ALL THEY KNOW-WHATS THE ISSUE. IT SEEMS LIKE SOME PARENTS ARE MORE INSECURE ABOUT THEIR OWN WAY OF TEACHING AND RAISING RATHER THAN BEING CONFIDENT THAT THEY ARE INSTILLING CORE VALUES AND BELIEFS. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE SAY SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AROUND A KID DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY WILL BECOME GAY/LESBIAN.

I HAD A WOMAN I PRESUME MARYMARY AND SOME OTHER OFF THE WALL PERSON. IMMEDIATELY HARP ON ME ON THE LIVE CHAT. I REALLY WASN'T THERE FOR ANYTHING ELSE BUT TO ASK QUESTIONS AND DISCUSS THE GENERAL TOPIC. NOT TO BE ATTACKED OR BE RUDE TO. EVEN ON SJ AND COMMENTS-MOST DO THE SAME AND MAKE IT PERSONAL... MAYBE IF SOME PEOPLE WEREN'T SO HASTE AND IRATE-I COULD MAYBE UNDERSTAND A LITTLE PIECE OF THEIR ARGUMENTS OR DEBATE. THEY BASICALLY RUIN IT. I KNOW ITS SAD TO SAY, BECAUSE ITS SORTA LIKE STEREOTYPING AND GENERALIZING. HOWEVER, AFTER HEARING MARC MUTTY AND SIMILAR PEOPLE IN HIS POSITION-I REALIZED AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT EVERYTHING HE/THEY SAID WAS WELL-IT JUST DIDN'T SOUND VALIDATED WITHOUT COMING ACROSS AS BEING DISCRIMINATORY OR PREJUDICE AND NOT WELL EDUCATED AT ALL (DESPITE HIS LONG LIST OF ACHIEVEMENTS). NO MATTER HOW HE PUT IT. TOWARDS THE END OF THE DISCUSSION MARC EVEN STATES THAT THE CHURCH HAS NO PROTECTION UNDER THIS LAW, GOES ON TO SAY THAT SHENNA STATES THAT IT WOULD (AND IT DOES STATE IN LD1020), THEN HE BACK TRACKS AND CONFIRMS THAT THE CHURCH IS ALREADY PROTECTED UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS BIZARRE, REALLY. THERE REALLY WASN'T ANY ARGUMENT FOR HIS STATEMENT. HE PRETTY MUCH ANSWERED HIMSELF... TWICE.

I JUST HOPE THAT PEOPLE SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THIS ALL. ASIDE FROM RELIGION-EQUALITY AND CIVIL LEGAL RIGHTS. I HATE THAT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT GAY/LESBIANS THAT IF THEY ARE ABLE TO (RIGHTFULLY) MARRY AS ANY OTHER HUMAN CAN-AS SOME KIND OF APOCALYPSE AND THE END OF ALL PROCREATION OR SOME KIND OF DISEASE. THAT GAYS/LESBIANS VIOLATE OR WILL BRING CONSEQUENCE... THESE ARE ALL VERY NEGATIVE TERMS. OR CONTINUE THE PREJUDICE AND HATE BY DENYING THEM THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANYONE ELSE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT AND EVEN BORN THIS WAY. WE WOULD WANT OUR CHILDREN TREATED AS EQUALS AND CAN BE ANYTHING AND DO ANYTHING THAT THEY WANT... JUST THAT IF THEY ARE GAY/LESBIAN THEY CAN'T GET MARRIED AND HAVE THE SAME LEGAL RIGHTS TO ADOPT CHILDREN OR BENEFITS WHEN THEIR PARTNER DIES?

SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT OTHER ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE MADE (OTHER THAN MARRIAGE FOR GAYS/LESBIANS)-WELL THOSE SEVERAL ARRANGEMENTS ARE TEDIOUS SEVERAL THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE-A WAITING GAME-A LONG, WINDED PROCESS... WHEREAS MARRIAGE IS A DONE DEAL. GAY/LESBIANS CAN BY-PASS THE HEADACHES AND WAIT AND JUST BE MARRIED. LEGAL AND BINDING AND EQUAL.

Traylblazer,
No! and that's the point.
Vote NO on 1
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

To begin with, I am always a bit surprised that, of all the ills in the world today, this is the issue that people choose to devote their time, energy, and money to; I guess I fail to understand who is really hurt by allowing same-sex marriage. I hear opponents saying that it harms children. More than domestic abuse? Alcoholism? The sex, drugs, and violence that our media are rife with? Seems to me that providing more loving families who are often more willing to adopt than heterosexual families are can only, on the whole, be of benefit to society in general. As for the Biblical arguments, I think that most of those are moot for both sides, unless, of course, you follow *every* dictate in both Testaments, and I think there are few who can boast that (do you suppose that everyone who claims Biblical support for their viewpoint keeps Kosher, pays attention to the origins of the fibers they wear, wears their beards long, etc., etc.? I rather doubt it.) If we are to follow the general tenets of organized religion, we might be best advised to avoid trying to put words in our Gods' mouths as to the particulars, and simply stick to the generalities. ("Love thy neighbor," anyone?)
Further, the idea of "protecting the sacred institution of marriage" seems ludicrous in a society that boasts of an average marriage lasting three years. I am fortunate enough to be the product of a forty-year-and-counting marriage, married for six-years-and-counting to another product of a forty-year-and-counting marriage. My parents have certainly worked through their difficult times, but I was raised to believe that marriage is not something to be undertaken lightly, nor abandoned lightly, either. Wouldn't directing our resources to combat our societal tendency to marry in haste and divorce in haste, too, be more supportive of the family structure? I certainly don't endorse staying in destructive relationships, nor situations where two parents living together causes more stress and damage to children than living separately would, but I do think that, as a society, we are not doing enough to support and promote rational and mature relationships. Perhaps, if the groups who generally oppose same-sex marriages really want to protect this sacred institution, they should direct their attention to banning celebrity marriages. After all, homosexuals can't do any damage to the sacred institution of marriage that Britney Spears has not already done.
With respect,
Jackie Young

jchick: "Nowhere in the scriptures is polygamy endorsed." Good God! What bible are you reading? Children having sex with their fathers. Fathers ready to kill their children. Unclean brides being stoned. Your statements, jchick, are delusional.

Mutty is stumbling all over himself. He does not even have a valid arguement!

While conceding that there are a substantial number of marriages where there is no intent to have children, especially for older individuals who may be in a second or third marriage, procreation was obviously a concern or there would be no basis for disallowing close relatives from marrying in most states. What basis does the state have for continuing to enforcing such laws if first cousins or even brother and sister are in love and in a comitted realtionship, with no intent or even medical rendered inability to have children? I am certainly not arguing for such, I am just saying that the rationale for disallowing this type of marriage largely vanishes if procreation concerns are removed entirely from the equation. Granting every right afforded to married people to long term same sex couples makes absolute sense to me. Deriding any other name for that union besides marriage as equivalent to a Plessy v. Ferguson violation is both unfair and inaccuarte given that in that instance the rights and priviliges at issue were clearly NOT "equal" to those afforded to the other group. The law differentiates between adopted children and those born to a married under probate law as well as placing the "step-" label certain parents and children to reflect their legal relationship with others, even though in most cases the rights afforded are largely the same regardless of the legal label. It would seem that a fully powered civil union statute would have guaranteed a much higher percentage of support than the current law whose outcome is razor close. Semantics over substance seems like a risky hand to play.

Nutty again confirms that the Yes on 1 folks are motivated by their hatred not by what is good for Maine. He failed to present a single rational, secular reason to vote yes on 1.
Here's another NO on 1.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

jclick, you mean that the Bible doesn't NOW endorse polygamy. Obviously polygamy is the biblical tradition of the jewish faith. To be practiced by jews it had to be endorsed by the jewish faith. Just because that endorsement has been removed from the Bible by sex hating monks in the middle ages does not at all mean that the christian tradition of marriage is not rooted in polygamy. In fact the Mormons among others have defended polygamy as biblical.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield

Mutty continue using the term "traditional marriage". Doesn't he know enough about the Bible to know that "traditional" marriage in the Bible is polygamy. There is no such thing as "traditional" marriage in the sense that he is using it. It originally was set up as a civil contract to provide for the ownership of the home and household goods when a couple united.

religious freedom is your choice so go bash your own religious

"Those that have been very critical about the church are failing to forget our long history of defending basic human rights." FAILING TO FORGET????????? The man tripped all over himself for 15 minutes. We certainly have not failed to REMEMBER: The Inquisition, the Crusades, child abuse, the coverup of child molestation by the church, the silence of the church during the Holocaust for which, decades later, the pope apologized (google it yourself), the condemnation and life imprisonment of a man for revealing the sun does not revolve around the earth (for which the church apologized hundreds of years later). If this man's comments weren't so pathetic, he could do standup comedy.