Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 Full story: The Skanner 9,654

With Maryland poised to legalize gay marriage, some conservative opponents and religious leaders are counting on members of their congregations, especially in black churches, to upend the legislation at the polls this fall.

Full Story
Saudi Arabian

Australia

#8529 Dec 3, 2012
my final saying in this.

homosexuals are only wanting this "parental" thing for themselves. they are Indeed very self-centered deviants who only care about their acceptance and self evaluations. they don't care about the torment or outcast the child would face/feel. its a bunch of selfish deviant adults serving themselves in a very selfish manner. thus this is why yet again they will be compared to the lower ranks heterosexuals among us. homosexual "parents" will never be like the true loving heterosexual parents. EVER!!!!!

INFERIOR INDEED.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8530 Dec 3, 2012
Saudi Arabian wrote:
<quoted text>
you homosexuals will always be inferior, your "marriage" will remain inferior, gay "parents" inferior. you envy everything heterosexual and copy heterosexuals by even calling yourselves "husbands"&. "wives". even calling yourselves such remains inferior.
how inferior and sad. loooooooool!!!!
Your judgement relies on your own prejudice and bigotry, not on any demonstration of fact.

You fail to show how all same sex marriages are inferior to all opposite sex marriages, or how recognizing equal rights as required by the constitution would change anything, including your irrational prejudice.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8531 Dec 3, 2012
Saudi Arabian wrote:
my final saying in this.
homosexuals are only wanting this "parental" thing for themselves. they are Indeed very self-centered deviants who only care about their acceptance and self evaluations. they don't care about the torment or outcast the child would face/feel. its a bunch of selfish deviant adults serving themselves in a very selfish manner. thus this is why yet again they will be compared to the lower ranks heterosexuals among us. homosexual "parents" will never be like the true loving heterosexual parents. EVER!!!!!
INFERIOR INDEED.
Selfish is trying to force others to live as you want them to. The desire to raise children is stronger in some people than in others, but surely a basic part of being human. Your desire to deny the humanity of others does nothing but harm them, while providing no benefit to you. It does not stop them from being human, or from trying to be the best human they can. It is your denial of their humanity that is selfish.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8532 Dec 3, 2012
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people's lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it." Oscar Wilde

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#8533 Dec 3, 2012
Saudi Arabian wrote:
my final saying in this.
homosexuals are only wanting this "parental" thing for themselves. they are Indeed very self-centered deviants who only care about their acceptance and self evaluations. they don't care about the torment or outcast the child would face/feel. its a bunch of selfish deviant adults serving themselves in a very selfish manner. thus this is why yet again they will be compared to the lower ranks heterosexuals among us. homosexual "parents" will never be like the true loving heterosexual parents. EVER!!!!!
INFERIOR INDEED.
Not really but your post sure is inferior Jackass.

Now post something pertaining to the thread or GTFOH.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Level 1

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8534 Dec 3, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
It does which is why ERA failed. ERA is unnecessary. All citizens have equal protection and due process. Only a nut would say otherwise.
Well Duh!!!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8535 Dec 4, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
It does which is why ERA failed. ERA is unnecessary. All citizens have equal protection and due process. Only a nut would say otherwise.
That's true, all persons have equal protection and due process; that doesn't create gender equality. Men and women are different and it's perfectly within the bounds of due process and equal protection to register 18 year old men for the draft, but not 18 year old women. There is no gender equality right; this has been tested by the US Supreme Court and they've found no problem with protecting women by combat exclusions and other laws.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8536 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
And where does the constitution explicitly say male and female are not equal under the law?
The second section of the 14th Amendment explicitly says males have rights that females don't.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Again, you continue to ignore the gender disparity recognized in the 14th amendment was corrected by the 19th amendment, again affirming that the constitution requires "all persons" must be treated equally under the law.
All persons are equal before the law isn't the same as gender equality.

Take some time to look at the gender equality rights in the Constitutions of other country's that allow same sex marriage; they explicitly mention gender equality. Our Constitution has no gender equality and recognizes male and female as unequal.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#8537 Dec 4, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's true, all persons have equal protection and due process; that doesn't create gender equality. Men and women are different ........
How does your wife feel about your lack of support for her right as a citizen to equal protection under the law, simply because she is female?

Where in the constitution does it create a special class for women, with restricted civil and legal rights based on their gender, alone?

Since: Mar 07

United States

#8538 Dec 4, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
...... Our Constitution has no gender equality and recognizes male and female as unequal.
List the ways that the Constitution mandates that inequality be based on gender.

Do you REALLY think that your argument would hold up either in court today, or society in general?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Level 2

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8539 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people's lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it." Oscar Wilde
So true. Thanks for posting this.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Level 2

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#8540 Dec 4, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's true, all persons have equal protection and due process; that doesn't create gender equality. Men and women are different and it's perfectly within the bounds of due process and equal protection to register 18 year old men for the draft, but not 18 year old women. There is no gender equality right; this has been tested by the US Supreme Court and they've found no problem with protecting women by combat exclusions and other laws.
There is nothing in your statement that supports prohibition of same-sex marriage.
TheTroll Stopper

Roanoke, VA

#8541 Dec 4, 2012
Saudi Arabian wrote:
<quoted text>
we homophobes will always be inferior, our bigoted opinions will remain inferior, unenlightened ignorance inferior. we envy everything tolerant and copy homophobic rhetoric by even calling ourselves "religious".
There, fixed that for you, bigot boy. You're welcome.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8542 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean you've been repeating and repeating and repeating your assertions while never reading anything that was posted for your benefit? You mean you never bothered to read any literature on the subject before you bored us with your unsupportable assertions? Hmmm. Not surprised I guess.
Now surprise me. Actually read these articles that you could have easily enough found on your own.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j....
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/dev/44/1/127/
http://muse.jhu.edu/login...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15...
which one of these "studies compares married gays to married heteros's?"
NONE?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8543 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to deny a fundamental right, you must be able to demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest sufficient to justify harming those denied. Encouraging one group does not justify harming another. Your lack of interest in legal equality is not a sufficient governmental interest.
explain why all the cases are ruling under rational basis?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8544 Dec 4, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You, of course, know the difference between scientifically conclusive results and the preponderance of the evidence.
no, i think you got people to buy your loaded studies as conclusive, but we are learning:

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-temporarily-block...

"The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.""

if you read some of the most recent studies, they all sling arrows at the ones you rely on...
self reporting...
hand picked samples...
SMALL samples....
pure junk.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#8545 Dec 4, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument relies on the false assumption children are always better served by having a mom and a dad.
nope. ALWAYS is not what I wrote, but its the hyperbole you address...

WHEN ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL...that's not always, that's HARDLY always...

and I doubt you can say that having both sex roles in the home is not a plus one factor....

I also have to be honest here, I have a few lesbian friends with kids...
Based on what I have seen they have hurdles to overcome and you know it...
you want to argue that they can overcome them (and you are right many can), but I don't need to argue that, that the extra hurdles exist to overcome is enough...

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8546 Dec 4, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The second section of the 14th Amendment explicitly says males have rights that females don't.
.
<quoted text>All persons are equal before the law isn't the same as gender equality.
Take some time to look at the gender equality rights in the Constitutions of other country's that allow same sex marriage; they explicitly mention gender equality. Our Constitution has no gender equality and recognizes male and female as unequal.
You failed to quote the section of the constitution you use to claim "the constitution explicitly say male and female are not equal under the law".

Again, here it is from amendment 14, section 2:

"But when the right to VOTE at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

The only right acknowledged here men have that women don't is the right to VOTE. No other rights are mentioned. That disparity was corrected with the 19th amendment:

Amendment 19:

"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."

There is no longer any disparity in rights in the constitution. It does however say "all persons" shall be treated equally. It doesn't matter what other countries write into their laws. Ours requires "all persons", yet it uses the language of not being deprived of equal rights and protections: "nor shall any state deprive any person..." So registering for the draft is not a protection, but rather an obligation. We also see women moving into combat positions, but again this is not currently recognized as a right of which they are being deprived. Mililtary service is not a fundamental right. Marriage is.

Level 7

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8547 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
nope. ALWAYS is not what I wrote, but its the hyperbole you address...
WHEN ALL OTHER THINGS ARE EQUAL...that's not always, that's HARDLY always...
and I doubt you can say that having both sex roles in the home is not a plus one factor....
I also have to be honest here, I have a few lesbian friends with kids...
Based on what I have seen they have hurdles to overcome and you know it...
you want to argue that they can overcome them (and you are right many can), but I don't need to argue that, that the extra hurdles exist to overcome is enough...
We don't live in your version of Utopia. In the real world, many same sex couples provide a safe, nurturing home for wanted children, while many straight parents have unwanted children that are abused for years, with many being eventually discarded. Having both sex roles in the home is no guarantee of safety or reasonable care and nurturing.

Yet harming gay families does nothing to encourage responsible procreation or parenting in straight families. It only adds extra, unnecessary burdens to gay families.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Level 1

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8548 Dec 4, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
no, i think you got people to buy your loaded studies as conclusive, but we are learning:
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-temporarily-block...
"The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies.""
if you read some of the most recent studies, they all sling arrows at the ones you rely on...
self reporting...
hand picked samples...
SMALL samples....
pure junk.
Right. Every time someone tries to prove there is something wrong with gay parenting, they fail. So you just ignore all the studies.

I don't particularly like the California legislature's action regarding reparative therapy. I believe, however, that the legislature's conclusions will be confirmed at trial. Basically, the judge stayed enforcement of the law until the courts have an opportunity to hear evidence supporting the law.

It's too bad rational basis arguments aren't subject to such careful review in general.

If the judge wants to strike down the law, he should do it based on parental prerogatives. If he does it on the basis that reparative therapy causes no harm, his decision will probably not survive the Ninth Circuit review.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min RealDave 1,173,453
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 4 min Ben YISRAEL 104,475
Dating African American men 5 min Curiousgirl 48
Per Capita Blacks commit 440% more crime thanWh... (May '12) 10 min Doctor No 645
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 12 min zIco zimp 28,579
BM Says BM Shot By Cop Is Due To Single Parenting! 18 min squeezers 27
Non-AAs have NO RIGHT to be in this forum 24 min Masud_S_Hoghughi__ 70
Did Africans REALLY sell other blacks into slav... 38 min iseeyou 230
Name something POSITIVE about black people. 5 hr Homey Sock 344
More from around the web