Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9652 comments on the The Skanner story from Mar 1, 2012, titled Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches. In it, The Skanner reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Skanner.

First Prev
of 483
Next Last

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10257 Sep 26, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
How dumb do you want us to believe that you are?
Is a gay couple not composed of two individuals?
Are those individuals not entailed to equal protection of the law?
Brian, you truly are implying that you are less than an imbecile.
The implication is quite obvious don't you think?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10258 Sep 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Show me. lides has proven he's an idiot. You, and others, refuse to believe facts that shine a negative light on homosexuality. Even the gay history law in California only allows history that "portrays homosexuals in a positive way." "The bill, SB 48, passed on a party-line vote, adds lesbian, gay, bisexual and so-called transgendered people as well as those with physical or mental disabilities to the list of groups that schools must include in the lessons. It also would prohibit material that reflects adversely on gays."
^^^They prefer the official PC party line to truth; that's why their wrong.
Neil An Blowme

Hoboken, NJ

#10260 Sep 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^They prefer the official PC party line to truth; that's why their wrong.
What 'truth' is that, Brian?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10261 Sep 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
^^^They prefer the official PC party line to truth; that's why their wrong.
Brian, when those you agree with are notorious trolls, that should be a clue.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10263 Nov 19, 2013
Neil An Blowme wrote:
What 'truth' is that, Brian?
The truth isn't always good for the image, that's why California law mandates teaching history with a 'positive' slant. PC history isn't truth, it's the way the Left wants it to be.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10264 Nov 19, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, when those you agree with are notorious trolls, that should be a clue.
A clue that lides calls other posters names? That's no puzzle. With weak and irrational arguments like the post quoted above, all lides can do is call others "trolls".

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10265 Nov 19, 2013
lides wrote:
How dumb do you want us to believe that you are?
I don't characterize other posters, especially in such a negative manner. But lides does, in many posts. See the above quote for example.

.
lides wrote:
Is a gay couple not composed of two individuals?
Yes, a gay couple is composed of two individuals who have the right to associate as they please. Note, polygamy is also composed of individuals. So are prison populations. Marriage isn't for everyone.

.
lides wrote:
Are those individuals not entailed to equal protection of the law?
I don't know about entailed, maybe that's an indication of lide's intelligence and enlightenment. Yes; all individuals are entitled to equal protection of the law.

Not the special right to rewrite marriage law for everyone. There is no individual right to marry whoever you please either. But don't worry, if you let the left win against marriage and family that will come next.

"George Bernard Shaw, speaking as an Irishman, summed up an approach to life,'Other people, he said, see things and say why? But I dream things that never were and I say, why not?"
John F. Kennedy


.
lides wrote:
Brian, you truly are implying that you are less than an imbecile.
I don't follow lides logic; it looks like ad hominem irrationality to me.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#10266 Nov 19, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
Advocating discrimination against and infringement of the fundamental rights of gays is not a centrist position, Brian. It's an unconstitutional one.
There is no right to marry whoever you please, no matter your orientation. The law discriminates; that's why they have judges. Don't worry, you'll learn about your culture as you age, if you get wiser. Some people never learn and marriage isn't for everybody.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#10267 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There is no right to marry whoever you please, no matter your orientation.
The right to choose a compatible marriage partner is indeed part of the protected personal liberty encompassed by the fundamental right of marriage, Brian.
Brian_G wrote:
The law discriminates; that's why they have judges.
Indeed it does and is allowed to when it meets the appropriate constitutional criteria. In the case of restricting the exercise of a fundamental right like marriage, there must be a compelling government interest that rationally relates the restriction to the the asserted interest in order for the restriction to be constitutional. The gender restriction doesn't meet this test.
Brian_G wrote:
Don't worry, you'll learn about your culture as you age, if you get wiser.
No worries, I can always wait for the demographic tsunami to wash you and your fellow bigots out to sea and provide insurmountable majority support for same sex marriage. Then you can die a dejected and disgruntled bigot and stop wasting the planet's oxygen.
Brian_G wrote:
Some people never learn and marriage isn't for everybody.
The decision to whether to enter into a marriage belongs to individual citizens, Brian, and can't be dictated on their behalf by the government or bigots like you.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10268 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>A clue that lides calls other posters names? That's no puzzle. With weak and irrational arguments like the post quoted above, all lides can do is call others "trolls".
No, Brian, the clue that you are arguing against equality for fellow countrymen. Your argument is not constitutional, it is unAmerican, and it is moronic.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10269 Nov 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I don't characterize other posters, especially in such a negative manner. But lides does, in many posts. See the above quote for example.
Brian, if you didn't say idiotic things, I wouldn't call you an idiot. If you cease to say idiotic things, I will stop calling you an idiot. However, if you insist on continuing to say idiotic things, I will continue to call you an idiot.
Brian_G wrote:
Yes, a gay couple is composed of two individuals who have the right to associate as they please. Note, polygamy is also composed of individuals. So are prison populations. Marriage isn't for everyone.
Sorry, Brian, that doesn't rise to the level of a compelling state interest to confine legal marriage to being between opposite sex couples.
Brian_G wrote:
I don't know about entailed, maybe that's an indication of lide's intelligence and enlightenment. Yes; all individuals are entitled to equal protection of the law.
Not the special right to rewrite marriage law for everyone. There is no individual right to marry whoever you please either. But don't worry, if you let the left win against marriage and family that will come next.
It's not a rewriting, Brian. It would be coming into compliance with existing constitutional guarantees. By your logic, freeing the slaves, giving slaves the right to vote, giving women the right to vote, ending segregation, and allowing interracial marriage were all heavy handed rewrites, but the reality is that they were moves to come into closer compliance with the equality we had already demanded we provide to all under the law.

Your idiotic, there's that word again, assertion that allowing same sex marriage changes marriage for everyone can be disproven quite simply. Existing marriages would not be affected, and those who wish to enter into traditional marriages moving forward would be free to do so. The only difference is that same sex couples also may marry, which is to say they would have equal protection of the law.

Your side is going to lose eventually. We have been winning at the ballot box, we have been winning in the legislatures, and we have been winning in the courts. Your side has been utterly unsuccessful in articulating any valid reason to deny same sex couples the right to legally marry, and while you have been attempting to rationalize an argument against same sex marriage, popular support has shifted in favor of it.

It isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when.
Brian_G wrote:
I don't follow lides logic; it looks like ad hominem irrationality to me.
Well, that's because you are an idiot.
Pat

Pekin, IL

#10270 Nov 19, 2013
Homosexual 'marriage' is a complete fraud.

It has been overwhelmingly rejected by homosexuals as an actual practice in every country that allows it, and studies have shown that most such 'marriages' aren't even exclusive arrangements.

No homosexual relationship shares the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and no such relationship can provide a child with a father and mother. Homosexual 'marriage,' where legal, isn't even a basic building block of homosexual society, much less of society as a whole. There is no standardized format for homosexual 'marriages,' and no economically unequal genders are involved.

Why not forget about disenfranchising others in order for force your concocted, failed philosophy into law? Why not try a little live and let live?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 483
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.

African-American Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I ain't no cracker 2 min Hillbilly 28
the best way to get the left to change its tune... 3 min dindu tribal leader 2
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min woodtick57 1,394,914
News Dueling groups to rally at Confederate landmark 4 min An NFL Fan 2,032
Why Black Women Are Dumb! 6 min Drilling for the ... 7
News African-Americans should start voting for Repub... 7 min Hillbilly 230
5 stabbed @ white nationalist trump rally 7 min Hillary 15
I need proof that the Ancient Egyptians Were No... (Oct '07) 1 hr Truth teller 32,581
the moors were black africans not arabs!!! (Jun '08) 2 hr Don Barros Serrano 46,285
Hebrew Israelite (Feb '11) 2 hr IT IS I 135,982
The UK has left the EU 3 hr Oh No You Di-nt 89
More from around the web