Lesser Known Baldwin Brother to Headl...

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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#245 Oct 29, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I don't have my own laws, the church does.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#246 Oct 29, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
The government would call you a married couple, not a family.
You call yourselves whatever makes you feel better.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#247 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
The government would call you a married couple, not a family.
That's what the government does to you, too. The government doesn't recognize "families". It recognizes marriage, it recognizes parentage, and it recognizes dependents. The government doesn't bestow the title "family" onto ANY family, and there aren't any legal benefits, rights or responsibilities associated with such a title.
Wondering wrote:
You call yourselves whatever makes you feel better.
That's what you do, too. You have no certificate from the government affirming that you and your wife "became a family" upon the birth of your first child. You're considered a family because YOU call YOURSELF a family, and you're considered that by other common citizens around you, colloquially. "Family" is not an official title in any governmental capacity. Welcome to the club.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#248 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have my own laws, the church does.
But the only LAWS that a license holder providing adoption services must abide by are the laws of the state, in this case, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#249 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Adoption is acquiring a family, not creating one.
It take sperm and an egg. Gay couples lack one or the other.
It takes a sperm and an egg to create a child, not a family.

A family is created when adults and/or children live together as a unit for emotional & financial support.

That you insist on disrespecting the millions of people who adopt kids is not surprising.

Once a bigot always a bigot.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#250 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Adoption is acquiring a family, not creating one.
It take sperm and an egg. Gay couples lack one or the other.
I know a lovely couple who could not have children and adopted two kids. I must tell them that they are not a REAL family. By the way, after they adopted the second kid, she got pregnant with a third kid. According to you, the first two are posers and merely boarders in that house. I'll be sure to bring it up on Thanksgiving and make everyone cry. I'll give the parents, parents to ONE of the kids, your name so they can chat you up later.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#251 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have my own laws, the church does.
Then they better NOT let adopted kids into that church, since they are not real people, according to you.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#252 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Adoption is acquiring a family, not creating one.
It is creating one legally, dipshit. What the hell do you think adoption means?

You are so hung up on such an irrelevant point. You must be exhausted after 10 years of whining and getting nowhere.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#253 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The government would call you a married couple, not a family.
Well that's patently untrue, you dolt. So now you're down to making up new lies?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#254 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't have my own laws, the church does.
No. The church has rules, NOT laws. And as I recall, telling a purposeful lie is against their rules.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#255 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't care if you're gay. I'm indifferent. When it comes to marriage I strongly support traditional man/woman marriage. To me, gay marriage makes no sense, never will.
Then don't marry someone of the same sex.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#256 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
One more time:
"Dickbreath, I said it did."
Doesn't change a thing. You and your partner can't create a family.
That's not true. Spawning isn't the only way to create a family.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#257 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The government would call you a married couple, not a family.
You call yourselves whatever makes you feel better.
Do you have this same argument with heterosexual childless couples in your church? Do you sidle up to them and whisper that they haven't formed a real family, they are simply spouses?

I'm sure your church supports adoption, as most Christian churches so.
Have you informed the adoptive parents in your congregation that they didn't start a real family when they adopted their children?

How did they react?

Have you discussed your ideas about real families with you pastor and others in your congregation, and do they agree with you? If not, you might want to rethink your stance.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#258 Oct 29, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They are a church. Can you believe you said that?
Catholic Charities is a BUSINESS, you moron.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#259 Oct 30, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what the government does to you, too. The government doesn't recognize "families". It recognizes marriage, it recognizes parentage, and it recognizes dependents. The government doesn't bestow the title "family" onto ANY family, and there aren't any legal benefits, rights or responsibilities associated with such a title.
<quoted text>
That's what you do, too. You have no certificate from the government affirming that you and your wife "became a family" upon the birth of your first child. You're considered a family because YOU call YOURSELF a family, and you're considered that by other common citizens around you, colloquially. "Family" is not an official title in any governmental capacity. Welcome to the club.
You can't be in my club. My partner and I created our family.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#260 Oct 30, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes a sperm and an egg to create a child, not a family.
That's how we created our family. You can't do that with your partner, no eggs.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#261 Oct 30, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't be in my club. My partner and I created our family.
How deific of you.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#262 Oct 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
It is creating one legally, dipshit. What the hell do you think adoption means?
You are so hung up on such an irrelevant point. You must be exhausted after 10 years of whining and getting nowhere.
Adoption is acquiring a family, not creating one.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#263 Oct 30, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The church has rules, NOT laws. And as I recall, telling a purposeful lie is against their rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law
Wow, you're dumber than a sneaker.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#264 Oct 30, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have this same argument with heterosexual childless couples in your church?
It's not an argument, it's a fact. BTW, I don't do church.

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
Ryan chitwood Jun 20 looking 1
brittany ownby (Feb '15) Jun 19 Scarlett 2
News Greenville Cops Beat Man Senseless At Walmart (Aug '14) Jun 19 Scarlett 9
why don't white males date black women (Jul '12) Jun 16 Shaft 57
News Tony Perkins claims churches will lose federal ... (May '15) Jun 3 NeoZionist 9
anyone know phillip lovin (Feb '10) Jun 2 NB Citizen 58
Need new parents. Its either yes or no. I dont ... (May '12) May 31 Julia 14
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greenville Mortgages