Lesser Known Baldwin Brother to Headline Ex-Gay Conference

There are 326 comments on the EDGE story from Oct 18, 2013, titled Lesser Known Baldwin Brother to Headline Ex-Gay Conference. In it, EDGE reports that:

Right Wing Watch reports that actor Stephen Baldwin, brother of actor and liberal activist Alec Baldwin, will be a featured speaker at an ex-gay conference later this month.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#225 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Then MILLIONS of adoptive parents would be wrong.
BTW, I totally disagree with you. Most people who adopt
are well aware that they didn't produce their children.
I bet they even no why.
"Producing" children isn't a requirement for starting a family, and raising children.

Fortunately, adoptive parents know that, even if you can't seem to grasp it. And thank God for them.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#226 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
.. Do you know what some married couples do? They start a family.....
Yes, and some of them are gay.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#227 Oct 27, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
"Producing" children isn't a requirement for starting a family, and raising children.
Fortunately, adoptive parents know that, even if you can't seem to grasp it. And thank God for them.
BWAHAHAHAHA, you're straying again.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#228 Oct 27, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and some of them are gay.
Oh, oh, hahahahaha! You're funnier than television.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#229 Oct 27, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>I bet some of them KNOW why also.
what is your problem? Why are you so MEAN? I know many families, straight and gay, who have adopted children. As soon as the kid is in the house, he or she is cherished and adored as if he or she was born to those parents. I knew adoptive parents who had both natural born and adopted kids and they treated them all the same, no difference at all in their love.
Why do you scoff at it? You're really mean.
There is nothing mean about stating facts.
I didn't say adoptive parents were bad parents. They are more likely to be good parents.
I have never 'scoffed' at adoption.
I also didn't cause Catholic Charities to get out of the adoption services they were so very good at.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#230 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing mean about stating facts.
I didn't say adoptive parents were bad parents. They are more likely to be good parents.
I have never 'scoffed' at adoption.
I also didn't cause Catholic Charities to get out of the adoption services they were so very good at.
Catholic Charities quit adoption services because they did not wish to follow the law. Buh-bye.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#231 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing mean about stating facts.
I didn't say adoptive parents were bad parents. They are more likely to be good parents.
I have never 'scoffed' at adoption.
I also didn't cause Catholic Charities to get out of the adoption services they were so very good at.
OK, now I'm just confused, you have stated many times that unless a family is mom dad and kid, they are less worthy, less real. Now you are denying it and saying that's not what you meant all. Which is it?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#232 Oct 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Catholic Charities quit adoption services because they did not wish to follow the law. Buh-bye.
Why didn't they want to follow the law? Be as detailed as your limited thought process will allow.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#233 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Why didn't they want to follow the law? Be as detailed as your limited thought process will allow.
Detailed? Only one reason: they think their religious beliefs exempt them from following the law. And they were wrong.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#234 Oct 27, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Detailed? Only one reason: they think their religious beliefs exempt them from following the law. And they were wrong.
You can do better. Why did they get out of the adoption services?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#235 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Then MILLIONS of adoptive parents would be wrong.
BTW, I totally disagree with you. Most people who adopt
are well aware that they didn't produce their children.
I bet they even no why.
And your bigoty is endless.

Of course adoptive couples know they didn't produce their children; no one said they did.

Creating a family can be done numerous ways, including adoption.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#236 Oct 27, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>OK, now I'm just confused, you have stated many times that unless a family is mom dad and kid, they are less worthy, less real. Now you are denying it and saying that's not what you meant all. Which is it?
If that's what you get from my posts, I can't help you.
Believe what you want to. I doesn't matter to me what you believe anyway.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#237 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
What has that got to do with the fact that you and your partner can't produce a child? You are straying again.
Now to your question:
"That anyone of any gender or orientation who adopts a child isn't actually "starting" a family?"
That's correct. They are acquiring a family. Someone else created them.
You're such a jackass as well as a racist sexist anti-Semitic homophobe.

To create a family where one didn't exist before is STILL creating a family, whether that's through childbirth or adoption.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#238 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You can do better. Why did they get out of the adoption services?
Because they couldn't take taxpayer money and still discriminate against same-sex couples.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#239 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
If that's what you get from my posts, I can't help you.
Believe what you want to. I doesn't matter to me what you believe anyway.
Obviously it DOES matter to you quite a lot, otherwise you wouldn't be on here constantly whining about same-sex couples getting married and starting families.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#240 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You can do better. Why did they get out of the adoption services?
They got out because they did not wish to comply with State Law. It's was ok for them to allow a single gay person to adopt, but the church was drawing the line at giving a child to a home with TWO gay parents. One is ok, legally-married two is bad.

It seems they were more interested in their religious beliefs than in actually helping children. Ask the Pope.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#241 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
You can do better. Why did they get out of the adoption services?
Because they, Catholic Charities (CC), could or would no longer fulfill the terms of their license to provide adoption services for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Remember, the change in their circumstance came down from the catholic hierarchy. They were in complete compliance with Massachusetts laws and regulations. CC would be welcomed back by the state.

But being licensed to perform services carries with it an obligation to follow all laws and regulations that pertain to said license. Do you get to decide which laws regulating driving you wish to ignore? Why would we let any other type of license holder.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#242 Oct 27, 2013
Wondering wrote:
As long as there are children. With no children there is a husband and wife, not a family. A family is a couple with one or more children. It can even be a single person with one or more children. If you have no children and you are married, you are a husband and wife.
That is simply more detailed specifications of their titles. A single person with a child can be specified in more detail as "mother and daughter", but that doesn't mean that they qualify as "a family" more than "husband and wife" (or "husbands" or "wives" for that matter. If they're related, either by blood or by legal decree, then they're family. If they're family, then they're A family. Just because some members are underage, or are the offspring of older members, doesn't mean that they "win" the name family.

Just like marriage, this is nothing but an attempt to "define" gay people out of the ability to use the word. You've decided that gay people can't be "family" because we don't live up to your favorite narrow definition (despite a broad range of available definitions). It's a way of telling us "You're not doing it right, based on how I say it must be done!".

It's fine for you to believe that everyone must live by definition #1 of the dictionary, but the rest of us know that civil law doesn't work that way. The law can recognize more than one way of doing something, and then dictionaries change to reflect societal functions, and we get definitions #2, 3, 4, etc.

It's no less odious to deny someone's right by waving a dictionary in their face as justification, than it is to wave a Bible.
Wondering wrote:
Something you will never be able to do with your partner is start a family. Yes, you can adopt but a third person is involved. It doesn't change the fact that you and your partner can't start a family.
When I marry my partner next Spring, that will start a family. Ours.

But, if we do decide to adopt, that would be no less a family either. I was adopted. No one went running to the people who raised me and scolded them for "involving a third person", or told them that we weren't a family.

You don't have to recognize any families, or any marriages, that you don't want to. You aren't the one who regulates the benefits of these arrangements. The government does that, and their definitions are the only ones that matter. But your insistence on adherence to the narrowest dictionary definitions possible is certainly silly. There isn't the slightest attempt to enforce these definitions onto the wide variety of families headed by heterosexual couples. This has never been an attempt to protect families. It remains as it ever was, exclusion of gay people from every possible social convention.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#243 Oct 29, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Creating a family can be done numerous ways, including adoption.
Adoption is acquiring a family, not creating one.
It take sperm and an egg. Gay couples lack one or the other.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#244 Oct 29, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
It seems they were more interested in their religious beliefs
They are a church. Can you believe you said that?

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.

Greenville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Worst Neigborhoods in Greenville (Feb '08) May 21 out of my mind 115
Our Broken System Produces Broken Investigation... May 19 Culture Auditor 1
Pet Grooming Schools & Associations Need To Be... (Dec '09) May 17 loveanimals 63
News Presidency is not an entry-level position May 14 Tazo 1
looking for chris cox of easley sc??? May 13 friend 1
Greenville Co - ElDeco Electric Is Bad? (Dec '10) May 13 Nope 65
Gay Teens In Greenville South Carolina May 12 The Robot Zombie 1
More from around the web

Greenville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]