Vermont votes for rights

Nine years ago, Vermont became the first state to adopt civil unions for same-sex couples, an act that seemed radical at the time but inadequate after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Read more
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
RJD

Altamont, NY

#1 Apr 9, 2009
Sorry but there are more pressing issues than gay marriage and civil unions. This paper is getting further out-of-touch with the real issues.
RJD

Altamont, NY

#2 Apr 9, 2009
Any chance of getting a new "competant" editor in the near future?
Informed Citizen

Schenectady, NY

#3 Apr 9, 2009
You folks don't get it do you? The Berkshire Eagle editor is gay which is why the issue of gay marriage is so important to the Berksire Eagle.
anonymous

Longmeadow, MA

#5 Apr 9, 2009
Mike Rachiele wrote:
It's Easter time and that means a license for the media to attack Christianity. It happens every year around Christman time and Easter. And while it may just be a coincidence with the Eagle's sad editorial, can the same be said for NEWSWEEK this week which had on it's cover "The Decline and Fall of Christianity in America?" Jesus is the "Way, the Truth, and the Life." Yes, America there is a "truth" and relativism is evil and our culture has fallen into it. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said, "The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. And error is error even if everyone believes it." Gay "marriage" is contradicotry to the truth. The human heart knows this even if relativists try to tell you otherwise. What an insult to God it is when gay couples have sex. This is making a mockery out of the way He created us. He made them "man and woman and the two shall become one flesh." He didn't make them male and male or female and female. God has a plan for humanity and gay "marriage' is not one. See Sodom and Gomorrah to see what God thinks of gay relations and the "truth shall set you free."
Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Jeffrey Reel

Stamford, CT

#6 Apr 9, 2009
Gay marriage: an assault against Christian values. How many times, over the course of history, have we heard this refrain? The Bible was invoked to justify slavery. Allowing, first the black man, then eventually women to vote was a threat against Christian values (but not the teaching of Christ). Inter-racial marriages were in direct opposition to the teachings of the Church and it was going to be the end of the world as we knew it (and it was, thank God). Allowing the black man and woman to first run for local offices was the quintessence of depravity and moral decay, if one were to listen to Bible-thumping Christians.
The language used today to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, when invoking the Bible, is the exact same language used in all of the examples above. All a person has to do is to go on the Internet and pull up the text, the arguments during those tumultuous times. It was always "moral decay" and "loss of Christian values." Ignorance, prejudice, fear. There will always be people like this. Their numbers fade in time until we get to a place where we can look back in time and view it as an historical curiosity. But it's always disturbing in the moment.
Religion Kills

Boston, MA

#7 Apr 10, 2009
Chirstianity is making its last dying gasps, thankfully.

That these people would post their bigotry and hate in the name of a stupid outdated cult shows me how far we have come and how far we have to go. At least we are winning this battle and the christian nut jobs are losing.

Thanks for showing your hatred and ingnorance. It seems some reasoning is needed here for if you read antiquated texts and really believe in talking snakes and burning bushes then there isn't much hope for your feeble little shrivelled unthinking minds.

For the eagles editors: the term is marriage equality, not gay marriage. Semantics matter.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9 Apr 11, 2009
Religion Kills wrote:
Chirstianity is making its last dying gasps, thankfully.
That these people would post their bigotry and hate in the name of a stupid outdated cult shows me how far we have come and how far we have to go. At least we are winning this battle and the christian nut jobs are losing.
Thanks for showing your hatred and ingnorance. It seems some reasoning is needed here for if you read antiquated texts and really believe in talking snakes and burning bushes then there isn't much hope for your feeble little shrivelled unthinking minds.
For the eagles editors: the term is marriage equality, not gay marriage. Semantics matter.
And you are showing your hatred and ignorance by condemning ALL christians, even gay christians. The true message of Christ about loving him, caring for others, and living a life of respect for others and service.

Snake handling and burning bushes really don't factor in to that.

Anyone who condemns an entire group of good, lawabiding people, en-masse, even though so many do not practice the intolerance, is a bigot in their own right.

And that definition can include gay folks as well as straight.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#10 Apr 11, 2009
RJD wrote:
Sorry but there are more pressing issues than gay marriage and civil unions. This paper is getting further out-of-touch with the real issues.
And those aren't also covered in this paper? Or is it just that you hate it when it covers social justice issues?

You know, like the ones on the front pages of every other paper in the country.
Religion Kills

Boston, MA

#11 Apr 11, 2009
Quest, there is no "true message of christ" it was made up to delude you.

Actually "liberal" christians who aren't the bad people we expect from this cult are the apologists that are allowing the evil forces in the various churches to survive.

To say someone is christian but doesn't harbour or support hatred is hypocritical. If you give the church money you are complicit in its genocide.

If the cult you belong to espouses hate, why stay a member and say you are different? There are other, rational minded, social groups to which you can belong.

Christianity has deluded humans for 2 millenia and the most sad are the ones that say "I'm not THAT type of christian".

You can be loving and accepting and charitable without the baggage.

Christianity in all its forms, due to the motivation behind its founding, is inherently evil. It cannot be fixed, is a lie, and is holding your mind hostage.
Not Right

Clifton Park, NY

#12 Apr 13, 2009
MONTPELIER, Vt.--The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called "sexting" between teenagers.

Sexting refers to the exchange of explicit photos and videos via mobile phone. Under current laws, participants can be charged with child pornography, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.

Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don't want to condone the behavior but they don't think teenagers should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.

The bill passed the state Senate earlier this month. The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on it this week.

So an 18 year old male college freshman could send pornographic pics/video to a 13 year old female 8th grader legally?
What

Clifton Park, NY

#13 Apr 13, 2009
http://www.wptz.com/news/18693055/detail.html

So an 18 year old male college freshman could send pics of his genitals to an 8th grade 13 year old female legally ?
Religion Kills

Boston, MA

#14 Apr 13, 2009
Not Right wrote:
MONTPELIER, Vt.--The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called "sexting" between teenagers.
Sexting refers to the exchange of explicit photos and videos via mobile phone. Under current laws, participants can be charged with child pornography, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.
Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don't want to condone the behavior but they don't think teenagers should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.
The bill passed the state Senate earlier this month. The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on it this week.
So an 18 year old male college freshman could send pornographic pics/video to a 13 year old female 8th grader legally?
Not right, I agree with your outrage over the unintended consequences of this ill thought through bill.

However that is not the issue. The issue is our obsession with sex and nudeness, stemming from our long history of puritanism and religiosity.

It is what caused the priestly abuse scandals (oh my, my son might be gay...send him to the priesthood!) and it is what creates the strange situation in our society when so many people are labelled sex offenders for urinating in public or doing something stupid in high school.

In Europe and other enlightened countries they do not see their bodies as evil "raw meat" as we do in our society and thus don't have these strange machinations we have.

Of course an 18 year old should not be able to send nude pictures of himself to a 13 year old. But should a 14 year old idiot kid be labelled "sex offendor" for life for doing something similar?

A rethinking of how we see nudity and the beauty of the human body in a more healthy light would be a big step towards solving these silly issues.
Rose

North Hollywood, CA

#15 Apr 13, 2009
Not Right wrote:
MONTPELIER, Vt.--The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called "sexting" between teenagers.
Sexting refers to the exchange of explicit photos and videos via mobile phone. Under current laws, participants can be charged with child pornography, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.
Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don't want to condone the behavior but they don't think teenagers should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.
The bill passed the state Senate earlier this month. The House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on it this week.
So an 18 year old male college freshman could send pornographic pics/video to a 13 year old female 8th grader legally?
Why not? Why are we so uptight about sex? When I was 13, I knew what sex was. I had enough knowledge/maturity to say "Yes" or "No". If I had wanted to see porno, I would have said "yes", if not, I would have said "no". What's the big deal?
Rose

North Hollywood, CA

#16 Apr 13, 2009
What wrote:
http://www.wptz.com/news/18693055/detail.html
So an 18 year old male college freshman could send pics of his genitals to an 8th grade 13 year old female legally ?
Thirteen year olds can marry in some states, so what is the big deal?
Dbone7

Brooklyn, NY

#17 Apr 13, 2009
It's your buddy Dbone 7! I'm not going to start on a tangent.

I think that kids (the 13s/14s, etc.) DO NEED a good dose of scare tactics that they want to dabble in the oh-so-fun world of e-media and Twitter and blogging, etc. than they need to expect and be responsible for what they put out "there." A girl that wants to let a 15 year old guy take a cell phone picture of her; should fully expect that that picture is fired up on the net ASAP.

That kind of thing has zero to do with religion; the human body or much anything else, than just using your head. A lot of kids are IN OVER THEIR HEADS when they start busting out the I Phone and snapping party photos.
Religion Kills wrote:
<quoted text>
Not right, I agree with your outrage over the unintended consequences of this ill thought through bill.
However that is not the issue. The issue is our obsession with sex and nudeness, stemming from our long history of puritanism and religiosity.
It is what caused the priestly abuse scandals (oh my, my son might be gay...send him to the priesthood!) and it is what creates the strange situation in our society when so many people are labelled sex offenders for urinating in public or doing something stupid in high school.
In Europe and other enlightened countries they do not see their bodies as evil "raw meat" as we do in our society and thus don't have these strange machinations we have.
Of course an 18 year old should not be able to send nude pictures of himself to a 13 year old. But should a 14 year old idiot kid be labelled "sex offendor" for life for doing something similar?
A rethinking of how we see nudity and the beauty of the human body in a more healthy light would be a big step towards solving these silly issues.
Religion Kills

Boston, MA

#18 Apr 14, 2009
Dbone7 wrote:
It's your buddy Dbone 7! I'm not going to start on a tangent.
I think that kids (the 13s/14s, etc.) DO NEED a good dose of scare tactics that they want to dabble in the oh-so-fun world of e-media and Twitter and blogging, etc. than they need to expect and be responsible for what they put out "there." A girl that wants to let a 15 year old guy take a cell phone picture of her; should fully expect that that picture is fired up on the net ASAP.
That kind of thing has zero to do with religion; the human body or much anything else, than just using your head. A lot of kids are IN OVER THEIR HEADS when they start busting out the I Phone and snapping party photos.
<quoted text>
Right on! I agree, except the connection to religion comes in when they teach everyone to be ashamed of their bodies.

Muslim veils, etc, the Australian "raw meat" comment of a few years ago. Christian "original sin" and the idea that god's son could only be clean if born out of a non sexual endeavor.

It does connect to religion, with very deep roots, but you are correct, we are not raising kids with the tools to make decisions they must make, and that is the sad part.
Religion Kills

Boston, MA

#19 Apr 14, 2009
Rose wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? Why are we so uptight about sex? When I was 13, I knew what sex was. I had enough knowledge/maturity to say "Yes" or "No". If I had wanted to see porno, I would have said "yes", if not, I would have said "no". What's the big deal?
You were probably raised much better than many of our current generation...totally agree with your comment, was similar for me.
SAL

Candler, NC

#20 Apr 14, 2009
how to have a bad USA--
how to have "gay marriage" all over the place--
how to mess up what children hear about--

IS THIS A COUNTRY or an EMBARRASSMENT??????????
I know- but not all

Tucson, AZ

#21 Apr 14, 2009
Religion Kills wrote:
<quoted text>
You were probably raised much better than many of our current generation...totally agree with your comment, was similar for me.
How about protecting a child's innocence?
How about taking a stand by insisting that certain things are just plain inappropriate?!
the human body IS beautiful in the right context. BUT it is not regarded that way much anymore. If it were, it would be held in higher regard and certainly not desecrated like it has been. It is no longer a thing of beauty but a marketing tool. An erotic "thing" to be used for pleasure.
At 13, I also knew what sex was but it certainly was not on my mind like it apparently is today for so many children. And, for that matter, WHY IS sex even on their minds like it is today?
this is WRONG and it is the fault of people who think that there IS nothing wrong with it. SHAMEFUL. SINFUL. we are talking about KIDS - children.
I used to live in VT from 1999-2000. I moved there because I thought it was a beautiful state.
I am DAMN glad I left.
I am VERY sad for the state of our society when a topic like THIS is even a real issue up for legislative action.
If you ask any good parent, they would NOT want their child participting in this sort of activity! come on Vermont, get a conscience!
Get a BRAIN.
Chartockian

Ludlow, MA

#22 Apr 14, 2009
Barack Obama does not support gay marriage. Why no criticism of him by Gay rights groups.

It seems that politics makes stranger bedfellows than gay marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Douglas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Fios vs. Charter for internet and cable in Nort... Mar 17 magnet1213 1
News 17 arrests target 'Outlaws' (Nov '07) Jan '15 Shannon_runion 48
webster (Apr '13) Jan '15 better off 22
News CVS banning all tobacco sales (Feb '14) Jan '15 anonymous 30
Debate: Gay Marriage - Whitinsville, MA (Jan '12) Jan '15 Brian_G 4
News Kurt Bell Jan '15 Paul Stockwell 1
Uxbridge Music Forum (Feb '13) Nov '14 Musikologist 10
Douglas Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Douglas People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]