Stand for Marriage Maine - TV Ad

[dulanthad]

This is actually good movement and it is a responsibility that we must protect the natural sexuality and the family foundation.

[jackson23220]

A-holes!

[gatitoprieto]

The rights of the minorities shouldn't be put up to question... It'd be an abuse! ¬¬ this is just sad...

[JoeyBoya]

I believe in FREEDOM i believe in LOVE i believe in EQUALITY... So theres no way i could be against marriage for everyone

[Queequel]

Get a life

[elementalpuck]

Fear Mongering at its worst. These people are uneducated religous fanatics who believe some fairy tale called the bible. The irony is they are the ones who are EVIL by denying basic rights to all of Gods children.

[MFNMultimedia]

She was my English teacher :D

[kevinkivo]

Being gay is not sinful, wrong, deviant, or criminal. It is completely natural. Gay men and lesbians deserve all the legal protections afforded to every other individual in Maine. Vote NO on Question 1.

[professermiller]

You lost...Back in the closet...you not be heard, you will not be seen, your hate, oppression, depression, drug addiction, deviant behavior, self hate, not accpted by your family, and lack of honesty with your inner self will not be tolorated by us!

[gatitoprieto]

you make me sick! how ignorant people can be nowadays...

[ma7799]

It is all of the above except criminal. Yes on 1!

[Blastomagnifico]

I don't think the fact that a behavior has always existed proves that it is not deviant. Can't it be that deviant behavior, in various forms, has always been engaged in by a certain percentage of the population. The behavior has to be judged on its own merits. Murder and rape have probably always existed too, but it doesn't make them good.

[slaternsd]

Murder and rape is illegal, homosexuality is NOT. There is a HUGE difference. We accept homosexuals in society. We do not accept murderers and rapists in our society.

[Blastomagnifico]

Homosexuality was actually illegal in some states until just recently. I had posted a longer response, but it didn't fit. The point is many people do not accept homosexuality as appropriate sexual behavior based on religious or moral principles, and the fact that it has existed for a long time is completely irrelevant to that fact, just as the fact that murder and rape have existed for a long time is irrelevant to the belief that they are wrong.

[slaternsd]

The point you are missing, whether people do not "accept" homosexuality as appropriate sexual behavior on WHATEVER grounds is not a justifiable reason to deny rights to this group. Besides, If you knew anyone homosexual, you would know that being gay is not just about sexual behavior, it is part of who a person is. If you had a gay child you might understand. By equating a sexual orientation with heinous crimes you only perpetuate hate towards gays. Thank God the hate crimes bill passed.

[slaternsd]

Additionaly, murder and rape hurts another person. Being gay doesn't affect anyone but the people involved in the gay relationship.

[cappeh]

saddlemomma, deviant behaviors aren't defined by the percentage of a population that behaves that way, they're defined by the people who see them as wrong. if you think homosexuality is a deviant behavior, then your opinion is that it's wrong.

and we wouldn't be granting civil rights for a "deviant behavior", we'd be granting civil rights to gay people. the wonders of specification, m i rite?

[Blastomagnifico]

I know a lot of gay people. I was only making the limited point that the length of time that a behavior has existed has nothing to do with whether or not it is good or bad, right or wrong. I was not saying that homosexual acts are the same as murder or rape. I only used those examples to show the flaw in the argument.

[Blastomagnifico]

If, on the other hand, you want to argue that homosexuality must be "acceptable" because it's part of who a person is, then the same can be said of almost any form of behavior, all of which stem from some form of inclination or orientation. One's orientation is, therefore, irrelevant morally. What matters is the act itself and whether a society considers it acceptable or not.

[budbeerz]

Vote yes on 1. my neighbors gay and is always arguing with his fetish lover. always having weird bald guys over late at night, and these people think there better than one man and one women, get a clue. They want to adopt, get a cat!!

[sinmantyx]

If we judged straight marriages by the worst of the straights - we would be against all straight marriage.

You can just trust me that, in my church, I witness loving families that include gay and lesbian parents every week.

Also, friends of a friend just adopted four children out of an incredibly abusive straight home. I think they are better off having two dads that don't do drugs and have a stable relationship.

Families are families and individuals are individuals.

[EarthboundSpiral]

Don't be deceived Mainers,

Whether or not 1 passes, some Maine churches will continue to marry men to men and women to women. The Constitution continues to protect the FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

Whether recognized with official government licenses or not, GAY MARRIAGES WILL CONTINUE.

Furthermore, good Maine schools WILL CONTINUE to prepare students to understand the REALITY of their lives and their fellow citizens--whether their fellow citizens are gay, straight, single, or--eek gads--MARRIED.

[PortlandMaine]

Great ad.

[anthonynewsome]

I see another Bishop in Canada was arrested and charged with having child abuse images on his computer, a report into Clerical Child Sexual Abuse in 2009 states the it is endemic with in the Catholic Church, almost 1 million children worldwide have died this year from war/no access to medi-care/hunger, Politics/Religion/Industry is ruled by straight men, GOD is always watching and gays/lgbt people need have no fear from HIM, Be Proud

[PortlandMaine]

Great ad.

[anthonynewsome]

adverts tell lies, and misguided information to make people buy into the product, the world is ruled by straight men who create wars/hunger etc, with over a million children killed each through conflict and hunger it is alarming to see these ads which promote homophobia and lies, when clearly straight men cause much much more harm to children, GOD is not about hate/fear/lies, LGBT people have no need to fear GOD, when Jesus walked the earth he did so with the outcasts, BE PROUD Jesus loves U

[StevenKeirstead]

The Wirthlins wasted thousands of dollars of the Lexington, MA school systems money. They filed a frivolous lawsuit demanding the school system consult them before any mention of homosexuality was made in class, even if it was a spontaneous child initiated conversation. The school tried to work out a compromise, but the Wirthlins apparently were totally unreasonable. School administrators say it became obvious the Wirthlins just wanted to sue.

[GhostTaps]

October 11th 2009

[Moritani]

Ugh. Pathetic, political paranoia at it's worst. The tragic thing is, with all the conservatives and elderly men and women in Maine (No offense, of course, to the elderly, but they did grow up in a different time) this kind of tactic actually could work. I mean, gramma's sittin' in front of Lifetime, and the little kids are right there and she envisions the school explaining anal sex to a young boy.

Untrue, to be sure, but that image will stick with gramma when she votes.

NO on One.

[awesomerepublican]

Wow, so the ad is advocating indoctrination of discrimination to children! That's horrible.

I'll stand for marriage all right-marriage for ALL people.

[octopibingo]

The government should not be in the position of forcing people to believe that a sexual aberration is normal.

Common sense won't stand for it.

There are many who have jumped on this cause celebre, but where was your outrage 20 years ago? Ten? Five? Last year?

Eggggg-xactly. Off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings....

[rainbowheartgirl]

Yup, another scare tactic using the good old "think of the children!" argument. Never mind that it's not true. They just want to scare people. They want to make conservatives think that by voting "Yes on 1" they will make it illegal to mention gay people in school. Which is just nuts. You can mention gay people *and* gay marriage in school all you want. There are no laws against that. Of course, there's also no course in school teaching kids who to marry or how to get married.

[SeanChapin1]

This is about treating everyone with respect. Gay families exist, and to not include the concept of gay families when learning about the general concept of families is not only disrespectful to those families but also furthers the potential for anti-gay harassment and bullying. (con't)

[SeanChapin1]

(con't) If you don't believe in gay marriage fine but be a good person and treat those in gay marriages with same respect that you deserve. After all, traditional marriage includes the concept of respect, and if you can't respect others, then ask me if it's really about preserving traditional marriage in voting yes on 1. Remember, we live in the United States, and that means that we are an undivided nation with liberty and justice for ALL people. Show some respect and vote No on 1.

[KoolaidMolestors]

One book, one encounter, one time in one school! Even if this was something terrible for kids to know about (keeping your kids away from knowledge of what exists in the world is ridiculous especially when it has nothing to do with violence or anything harmful to simply know of). Don't you love how it's the exact same parents and exact same instance they're exploiting as they used in California during the proposition 8 campaign to take rights from gays that everyone else automatically has?

[auntiesanity]

Gays don't stand a chance against the fear-mongering right. When you put minority rights up to a vote, the minority is always abused by the majority. It's sickening that a democracy allows this kind of thing. America is a such a young country... so much to learn.

[lultimanotte315]

These people are absolutely unbelievable.

For one thing, if you are a "Christian" who does not believe in same-sex marriage, then you probably don't believe in evolution either. But evolution is taught as fact in the public school. I don't hear anyone making a fuss about that. They just teach their children at home that creation is what they believe in. They should do the same with same-sex marriage. If you don't believe it, then teach your children that AT HOME. But don't expect the

[lultimanotte315]

public school to teach ONLY what you believe and not present other options as well. That being said, marriage of ANY kind is NOT taught in school in the first place.

So this whole scare tactic is pointless.

[Saddlemomma]

Actually we have strived to have both Creation and Evolution taught in schools and have been shot down each time. So, who is actually not presenting other options--The school system and the powers that be. I do homeschool my daughter and she is taught both options so she will have the ability to determine herself which is the truth for her. Don't tell me we haven't fought for Creationism in schools -- you just don't hear about it in the liberal media. No surprise there!

[pentothepage]

We-ellll, there is a corps of conservatives who make a fuss about not teaching creationism in school. . . granted, that's more in the bible belt than Maine. But never underestimate the power of ignorance. =b

[Saddlemomma]

Here we go again with the bigotry. To you believing in creation = ignorance. However I don't hear the Theory of Evolution called the Law of Evolution yet. There is a plethora of evidence to support Creationism, but you will never investigate that due to your own bigoted mindset. That evidence is also surpressed in the media. If you want to become educated on both issues, check out Answers in Genesis. Google it. Don't be close minded.

[sinmantyx]

I really don't think that creation science and anti-gay marriage laws have anything to do with each other besides the people who tend to support them.

However, don't assume that people who reject Creation Science (which is really different than simply being a Creationist) as not understanding it.

[sinmantyx]

However, you are displaying a very popular misconception about science.

A "law" does not require more certainty than a "theory". Simply, a "law" is just simpler than a "theory". There are aspects of evolutionary theory that we are VERY certain of, and others that we aren't - just like every theory. :)

[dontbeakakke]

TYPICAL homophobic scare tactics, shamelessly involving children. It's not same-sex marriage, it's "homosexual marriage," which is apparently supposed to be scarier and more taboo...

This is the SAME exact lie that they used (successfully) to convince people to vote yes on Prop 8 in California. Unfortunately, people don't need that much convincing, a lot of Americans are woefully ignorant and even bigoted towards homosexuality and the principles of equal protection in a secular state.

[Saddlemomma]

don'tbeakakke --

How do you feel about polygamists? They will be next in line to demand their civil rights, as well as those who practice beastiality. Why shouldn't their rights be allowed to have their rights too? Do you plan to oppose them or support them?  If you support gay rights you must logically support their rights as well -- or -- will you then turn into a bigot too? An honest answer would be appreciated.

[sinmantyx]

If you support straight marriage - at what point does that end? Don't you have to also be for every other type of marriage? It's only logical.

:)

[Saddlemomma]

Hi sinmantyx,

Actually no, I don't have to be for every other type of marriage. I don't consider marriage to be anything other than the way I feel God created it to be: between 1 man & 1 woman. That is my opinion. Others have a different opinion. Do I hate them for that or call them names? No. However, I have a mandate to vote MY conscious & according to MY beliefs. Just as others vote for theirs. You are entitled to vote anyway you please and God bless you for exercising that right.

[sinmantyx]

You do not by any means have a mandate to vote to pass constitutional amendments that violate equal protection under the law and bar a particular minority of the population from entering into legal contracts that others can.

In fact, perhaps the opposite since the Biblical Jesus constantly insisted on staying out of politics every time he was pressured to.

I do not have a mandate to vote for laws abridging the rights of others and forcing my views on them instead of making my point.

[sinmantyx]

...and by the way, just so you understood me. I was being sarcastic with the ":)"...

The argument that you have to be for all forms of marriage if you are for one form is ridiculous - just as your argument is not sound.

[cappeh]

are you seriously comparing gay marriage to humans fucking animals? what the hell?

[Saddlemomma]

CAPPEH - No, I'm saying that homosexuality is a deviant behavior; so is polygamy and beastiality. They are not the same behaviors, but behaviors nonetheless. If we start to grant civil rights for "diviant behaviors" then a legal precedent will be set. Once that is done - no deviant behavior can then be discriminated against. Look up the word deviate: "characterized by or given to significant departure from the behavioral norms of a particular society" Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.

[thanatos101b]

Really? So Jewish people should not have civil rights? After all according to your logic, Judaism is a deviant behavior. Veterans are guilty of deviant behavior, obviously they should be stripped of their civil rights. Oh, and which, exactly, Christian sect is the one that isn't deviant behavior, and thus deserving of civil rights?

[sinmantyx]

The Unitarian Universalist Church has respected these marriages and asserted that all love is sacred for a long time.

There are currently about 340,000 UUs in the U.S.A and four U.S. presidents were U.U.

Hardly "deviant" to us.

Anyhow, legal precedent is not widely categorical in the way you are presenting it. You have NOTHING to fear in that regard, and it seems that you simply don't want to discuss THIS issue, but divert it to some other issue that is easier to argue against.

[Saddlemomma]

If you dispute that homosexuality is a "deviant" behavior, consider this: Only about 10% of the world's population is homosexual. That means that 90% are not homosexual. To me that sounds like homosexuality is characterized by significant departure from the behavioral norms of our world society.

Please notice I did not say anything nasty about this fact. It is just a fact whether we like the way it sounds or not.

[Permaglo]

About 10% of the world's population is left-handed. Would you call them "deviants?"

Hey, when you find an animal that can understand and consent to a legal contract, I will be the first one to advocate bestial marriage rights. As far as polygamists go, they can already marry someone. All gays are asking is to be able to marry someone too, or would you rather them spend the rest of their lives alone?

[neenerpuss]

Also note that as a fact homosexuality have always been around 10% through out history. A non-reproducing trait has managed to reproduce consistently through out history. That would make it normal. Not a majority, but no less normal. Since homosexuality has been around FOREVER, wouldn't it make sense that if it were a choice, that like slavery it would have been eliminated? But for some reason it still accounts consistently for about 10% of the human population. Who would chose it? Its normal!

[sinmantyx]

I think it is difficult to make an empirical argument that homosexuality has always been at the magic 10%, but it is quite obvious that it is NOT a new invention or something "unnatural". There are plenty of historical people who were gay or bisexual: Alexandre the Great, King James (of King James bible fame), Alan Turing (British code breaker), etc, etc.

Natural does not mean "good" - however, it simply makes NO sense to pretend gays do not exist or mistreat them. It's simple.

[Jashoda0m]

Everything to do with schools?? Ridiculous!

[slincolnwx]

Oh look, more lies and children being used as political pawns. What a great set of religious role models the anti-marriage Yes on 1 crowd is for us.

[sinmantyx]

I like how the ad says "They told us..." instead of actually explaining what the law says or does not say. :P

[pentothepage]

Pfft, whatever, ye crazy conservative ad. I am a teacher, and I will teach that families are families no matter who married whom. Or didn't marry whom. Or what sex the parents are. So you can vote yes on one and I'll still do it.

[PrepeiNaSasPw]

Bansley teaches in a private Christian school, not in a Maine public school. Just one more reason this ad is misleading!

Fraud!

We all know that private schools would NEVER be affected by this, even if they are right (which they are not) that public schools would be.

[Hersheysd]

Nice recycling there s4mm. Got any NEW material to draw from that is actually APPLICABLE to Maine?

[johnozed]

The law says boys can marry boys, just as boys can marry girls. They would rather keep their children as ignorant as they are since no one wants their children to be smarter than the parents. That would be so WRONG.

[lewistonvideomaker]

This ad doesn't make any sense. Why would a teacher be restricted from telling students what the law says? Should second graders also not be allowed to learn that "men can marry women"? Marriage is marriage and should be available to everyone if its going to be available to anyone (legally speaking). This ad is just trying to confuse and scare people.