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

#62 Oct 21, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws are more than just the words written on the page.
That's exactly what they are.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#63 Oct 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Homosexuality and gay marriage have caused more harm to women, men and children. A man or women that has a traditional marriage and then later comes out as gay destroys the family. Happens a lot.
2. Simple change in the law, just like they did for gays.
Which is why it's better to simply allow same-sex couples to marry.

Feel free to work on getting the law changed to allow inanimate objects to marry.

Meanwhile we'll be getting marriage equality for same-sex couples in state after state.

Up next- New Mexico, Hawaii, & Illinois.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#64 Oct 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Category: Couples that can't reproduce
A woman and her cat.
A man and his car.
Two men.
Two women.
Wow, with moronic arguments like that is it any wonder you anti-gays keep losing in state after state.

Up next- New Mexico, Hawaii, & Illinois.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#65 Oct 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
No. lides likes to quote that crap. Here's one for you and lides that applies to fees associated with Obamacare:
"If receiving insurance benefits runs counter to your religious beliefs (provided you belong to a religious group recognized by the federal government), no penalties are applicable for you."
That looks like a law to me and unless the word "recognized" has a different meaning in the gay dictionary then this law is a violation of the 1st Amendment. I wonder how certain bakery and photography shops feel about this.
Bakery & photography shops are businesses open to the general public, and as such they are required to follow public accommodation laws.

You're really not very good at understanding the law are you.

Which explains why you anti-gays keep losing in state after state after state.

Up next- New Mexico, Hawaii, & Illinois.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#67 Oct 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Homosexuality and gay marriage have caused more harm to women, men and children.
1. Funny how no one has been able to provide evidence of that in court, isn't it?
weezy

Chicago, IL

#68 Oct 21, 2013
Hope for Holeness?

“Common courtesy, isn't”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#69 Oct 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Category: Couples that can't reproduce
A woman and her cat.
A man and his car.
Two men.
Two women.
CATEGORY: COUPLES THAT CAN'T REPRODUCE, cont.

Post-menopausal heterosexual women.
Heterosexual men with low sperm counts.
Heterosexuals on certain types of medications.
Heterosexuals with certain types of paralysis.
Heterosexual men with erectile dysfunction.
Heterosexual women who have had hysterectomies.
Heterosexual men who've had irreversible vasectomies.
Heterosexuals who've had various forms of cancer.
Heterosexual couples who choose not to engage in sex.
Women who've been subjected to genital mutilation.
Women on birth control.
Men who wear condoms.

CATEGORY: COUPLES THAT CAN REPRODUCE

A rapist and his victim.
A man and a woman who engage in incest.
A prostitute and her john.
An adult and an opposite sex minor.
A woman and a turkey baster full of the right stuff.
An egg and a sperm in a petrie dish.

So now that we've taken this ludicrous exercise to its extreme, WTF are you suggesting? That marriage should be required of things that can reproduce and barred from entities that can't?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#70 Oct 21, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly what they are.
Of COURSE you ignored the rest.

It's inconveniently true.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#71 Oct 22, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Funny how no one has been able to provide evidence of that in court, isn't it?
I'll explain it for you, dickbreath. It starts as a traditional marriage. Children are born. Then the husband or the wife decides they prefer someone of the same sex. The result is a devastated spouse and a broken family. Gotta love those gays.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#72 Oct 22, 2013
Otter in the Ozarks wrote:
<quoted text>
CATEGORY: COUPLES THAT CAN'T REPRODUCE, cont.
Post-menopausal heterosexual women.
Heterosexual men with low sperm counts.
Heterosexuals on certain types of medications.
Heterosexuals with certain types of paralysis.
Heterosexual men with erectile dysfunction.
Heterosexual women who have had hysterectomies.
Heterosexual men who've had irreversible vasectomies.
Heterosexuals who've had various forms of cancer.
Heterosexual couples who choose not to engage in sex.
Women who've been subjected to genital mutilation.
Women on birth control.
Men who wear condoms.
That's the kind of response I'd expect from someone in the Ozarks.
For your education:
Post-menopausal heterosexual women. Could.
Heterosexual men with low sperm counts. Could.
Heterosexuals on certain types of medications. Could.
Heterosexuals with certain types of paralysis. Might.
Heterosexual men with erectile dysfunction. Could.
Heterosexual women who have had hysterectomies. Could.
Heterosexual men who've had irreversible vasectomies. Could.
Heterosexuals who've had various forms of cancer. Could.
Heterosexual couples who choose not to engage in sex. Could.
Women who've been subjected to genital mutilation. Could.
Women on birth control. Could.
Men who wear condoms. Could.

What a list, it proves you can't think or that you refuse to.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#73 Oct 22, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Of COURSE you ignored the rest.
It's inconveniently true.
Not at all. You think that every law is a good law because it was carefully thought out. I disagree. And who carefully thinks these things out? Is it just men and women or some kind of law god?

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#74 Oct 22, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Reconsider, and include .
JESUS: Matt. 18:19-20,[MARY] "I can guarantee again that if two or more of you agree on anything here on earth, my Father in heaven will accept it."

Hey, if it is good enough for God!

Polyandry (Ancient Greek: polysómany, an&#275;róman) is a form of polygamy whereby a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time. Polyandry is contrasted with polygyny, involving one male and two or more females. Polyandry is also distinct from group marriage, involving plural participants of each sex.

According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry.[1] Polyandry is less rare than this figure which listed only those examples found in the Himalayan Mountains. More recent studies have found 53 societies outside of the 28 found in the Himalayans which practice polyandry.[2]

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#75 Oct 22, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Um.... there IS something wrong with polygamy.
And of course you are never going to tell us what it is.

There is something wrong with not minding your own business.

1 Peter 4:15 KJV, "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters."

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#76 Oct 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy harms women, children, and society.
Cars can't consent; neither can cats.
If a woman wants to marry a man and another woman wants to marry the same man and all three agree to it where is the harm?

My grandfather was a Mormon and I had two grandmothers and I can tell you it was wonderful growing up with lots of relatives like that. Especially at holidays, like Thanksgiving, one Grandma making turkey the other making ham. Most of the kids I knew thought I was lucky and were even jealous.

Wanting to control the peaceful activities of other consenting adults is what harms women, children and society.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#77 Oct 22, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to work on making that legal.
Have fun with that.
Meanwhile we'll continue to win marriage equality for same-sex couples in state after state like we just did in New Jersey.
Up next- New Mexico, Hawaii, & Illinois.
And as a Christ-insanity-ist Wondering will have to obey the new laws as if they were his God's own laws. Why?

GOD: Romans 13:1 ESV, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."

Clearly if the governing authorities make gay marriage legal it is God taking credit for it.

God is pro gay marriage.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#78 Oct 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
That's the kind of response I'd expect from someone in the Ozarks.
For your education:
Post-menopausal heterosexual women. Could.
Heterosexual men with low sperm counts. Could.
Heterosexuals on certain types of medications. Could.
Heterosexuals with certain types of paralysis. Might.
Heterosexual men with erectile dysfunction. Could.
Heterosexual women who have had hysterectomies. Could.
Heterosexual men who've had irreversible vasectomies. Could.
Heterosexuals who've had various forms of cancer. Could.
Heterosexual couples who choose not to engage in sex. Could.
Women who've been subjected to genital mutilation. Could.
Women on birth control. Could.
Men who wear condoms. Could.
What a list, it proves you can't think or that you refuse to.
Whew, good thing you set us straight on all these scenarios, or the people on that list might not have squeaked through the state requirements for marriage. Oh wait, procreation is STILL not a requirement in any state.

Otter's point was that enumerating these AT ALL is ridiculous in the extreme. He TOLD you that, IN his post.

Whether ANY of those cases can or cannot reproduce is beside the point. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, ever.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#79 Oct 22, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
Whether ANY of those cases can or cannot reproduce is beside the point. Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, ever.
They all can or could. No gay couple can. Traditional marriage often produces family and is the optimal setting for the upbringing of children all else being equal. For this reason it is in the government's interest. Gay marriage offers nothing to the government.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#80 Oct 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
They all can or could. No gay couple can.
That doesn't matter! Why don't you get that? There's still a long list of people who cannot, and they are NEVER EVER denied a marriage on those grounds. The presence of children, the absence of children, and the ability to make children, have NEVER been qualifiers for getting married.
Wondering wrote:
Traditional marriage often produces family and is the optimal setting for the upbringing of children all else being equal.
And yet people are allowed to adopt, foster, or become step families. No one goes running to them saying "You can't marry because that wouldn't be optimal!". No one's decision to start a family is halted or impeded just because they might not be an "optimal" family.

I mean, for crying out loud, do you REALLY THINK that by banning gay people from MARRYING, that this will magically stop us from raising children as well?
Wondering wrote:
For this reason it is in the government's interest. Gay marriage offers nothing to the government.
It certainly does. Since what's really important is how a child is RAISED (not the method it was brought into the world, nor the method of how it is united with the people who will raise it), this is something gay couples can do. We can raise children, regardless of how those children were conceived, or how they came to be in their care.

If marriage is SO tied to procreation, then why doesn't the government DENY marriage to then infertile, the elderly? Elderly marriage offers nothing to the government. Infertile marriage offers nothing to the government.

I know a quadruplegic couple. Both were already fully paralyzed before they met, and before their marriage. But quadruplegic marriage offers nothing to the government, right? Yet NO ONE stopped them from marrying.

When will people like you realize that marriage is NOT ABOUT CHILDREN? A married couple MIGHT raise children, but if they don't, their marriage rights are not diminished. This is because marriage is about the COUPLE. It protects THEIR rights. The rights of the child are NEVER at risk, regardless of the marital status of their parents. But marriage offers a broad platform of rights and benefits which apply directly to the SPOUSES (and to them alone). These rights regulate their shared estate, and protect their bond from outside influences. Every single one of these protections (and there are over 1000) are completely valid even if they have ZERO children.

But if they ARE raising children, like many gay couples are, then marriage offers them the stability of commitment and protection which a family thrives on. Families headed by gay couples thrive on that stability NO LESS than families headed by straight couples.

The US government has a responsibility to its citizens to treat them all as fairly and equally as possible. It is in the government's interest to UPHOLD that principle, and not seek to ROB it from its people.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#81 Oct 22, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
If a woman wants to marry a man and another woman wants to marry the same man and all three agree to it where is the harm?
My grandfather was a Mormon and I had two grandmothers and I can tell you it was wonderful growing up with lots of relatives like that. Especially at holidays, like Thanksgiving, one Grandma making turkey the other making ham. Most of the kids I knew thought I was lucky and were even jealous.
Wanting to control the peaceful activities of other consenting adults is what harms women, children and society.
Normally I would agree with you. Unfortunately the history of polygamy is just another misogynistic arrangement which primarily benefits the man. That's probably why there are virtually no instances of a woman marrying multiple men.

Free will & informed consent are one of the biggest problems with polygamy. The history of forced child bride marriages in polygamous communities can't be ignored or easily dismissed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#82 Oct 22, 2013
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
They all can or could. No gay couple can. Traditional marriage often produces family and is the optimal setting for the upbringing of children all else being equal. For this reason it is in the government's interest. Gay marriage offers nothing to the government.
Irrelevant AND incorrect as usual.

That probably explains why you anti-gays keep losing in court after court and state after state.

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
Hillary Destroying FBI Credibility Feb 5 Corruption in FBI 1
Is anybody feeling the Bern? Feb 2 BLM 2
Hillary Clinton Meltdown Feb 2 News 1
why don't white males date black women (Jul '12) Jan 27 SouthernAmerican 53
News Rand Paul Says He Will Be The Only True Conserv... Jan 26 Egg White Privilege 1
Randall Stowe / Aiken County Board of Education... Jan 22 Julia Ramos 3
DON'T work for or hire PALMETTO AMBULANCE Jan 22 Julie Ramirez 3
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greenville Mortgages