Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9647 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.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9757 Jan 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your attempt at logic fails on several levels.
If your belief men are not as capable of exclusive commitment as women, and if that is a valid reason to deny the fundamental right of marriage, then men should not be allowed to marry anyone.
Is that true for all men?(obviously not) Do we deny a fundamental right based on the abuse of that right by some?(of course not)
But even if this were a valid point, it would support encouraging two women to marry rather than either marrying a man.
So your alleged reason # 31 fails the test of logic, reason, as well as the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law for "all persons".
Great response....but he won't get it.......the right to marry is not based on whether someone will be MONOGAMOUS or remain MONOGAMOUS once they are married......that is all up to the couple and isn't nor should it be based solely on gender.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9758 Jan 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe men are as capable of exclusive commitment as women; therefor a 'marriage' between two men would be less monogamous than traditional marriage.
Reason #31 for keeping marriage male/female: Monogamy.
Your beliefs are irrelevant. Many people are not capable of being faithful to their spouse regardless of gender. Do you have a point here?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9759 Jan 8, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a lot of commentary on "why the Bible". Google it.
At the end of the day its about knowing God personally and recognizing where he is and is not.
John 10:1-6
“I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger’s voice.” Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.
or try this:
http://www.therivercrc.com/library/seekers/bi...
Pure drivel.

No thanks.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9760 Jan 8, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Your beliefs are irrelevant. Many people are not capable of being faithful to their spouse regardless of gender. Do you have a point here?
The logical point of his excuse for denial of equality is; only women should be allowed to marry.

But because marriage is a fundamental right of the individual, the point fails badly, proving once again, there is no reasonable, rational, or scientifically supportable excuse for denial of equal treatment as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9761 Jan 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Great response....but he won't get it.......the right to marry is not based on whether someone will be MONOGAMOUS or remain MONOGAMOUS once they are married......that is all up to the couple and isn't nor should it be based solely on gender.
What? You don't support marriage for women only?:)

Yes, I know he will refuse to understand and will keep offering the same old discredited excuses and slogans wrapped up to appear logical if not examined.

"Reason transformed into prejudice is the worst form of prejudice, because reason is the only instrument for liberation from prejudice.” Allan Bloom

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9762 Jan 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
What? You don't support marriage for women only?:)
Yes, I know he will refuse to understand and will keep offering the same old discredited excuses and slogans wrapped up to appear logical if not examined.
"Reason transformed into prejudice is the worst form of prejudice, because reason is the only instrument for liberation from prejudice.” Allan Bloom
Wouldn't that make me a bit of a hypocrite? Sorry, but nope......either all person's wanting to marry have the right to marry the person of their choosing regardless of gender or no one gets to marry......and before someone says "but what about polygamist"? Their fight is a two-step process and I wish them all the luck if they want things to change for themselves!!!

“Yes WE Can! Yes we Will!”

Since: Jul 07

Baltimore, Md.

#9763 Jan 8, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes...the old "but Jesus didn't say anything about 'homosexuality' and he said we should love one another" argument.
Nonsense. The Bible is clear and consistent in its condemnation of gay sex. The Gospels don't record Jesus talking about gay sex because there is no need to. Reasonable people don't argue the matter...only gay activists and their friends.
Jesus did define marriage for us though.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'and said,'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one.(Matt 19:4-6)
But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.(Mark 10:6-8)
And please spare the "he was talking about divorce" thing. He was RESPONDING to a question about divorce and in the process reiterated Biblical marriage...and with a certain amount of reverence...don't you think?
The Apostle Paul talked about homosexuality. Was e not a "reasonable" person? Or maybe he was a "gay activist." Maybe Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality because it wasn't an issue for him. Maybe only bigots are bent out of shape by it.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9764 Jan 8, 2013
Same sex marriage would harm marriage by decreasing monogamy; the marriage of two men is far less likely to be monogamous than the marriage of a man and a woman.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9765 Jan 8, 2013
LuLu Ford wrote:
People practicing sex with one partner in a committed relationship is a marriage ideal. It is in the best interest of the state to promote that ideal as a way to stem the tide of STDs.
Answer to your question. NO it would not. Marriage is about commitment. Are you saying you don't believe in marriage commitment?
Same sex marriage would harm the marriage ideal of monogamy; two men are less likely to have a monogamous marriage than a man and woman.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9766 Jan 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage would harm marriage by decreasing monogamy; the marriage of two men is far less likely to be monogamous than the marriage of a man and a woman.
Not a reason to deny marriage to Gay men.......sorry, just because you believe marriage should be a certain way doesn't mean others do, and besides, you'd have to prevent all those heterosexual couples who are into swinging from marrying......I mean they aren't MONOGAMOUS.......lol!!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9767 Jan 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage would harm marriage by decreasing monogamy; the marriage of two men is far less likely to be monogamous than the marriage of a man and a woman.
What you again express, is fear of imagined consequences. That is not the same as an actual consequence.

We know marriage has a stabilizing effect on relationships and you have shown nothing to demonstrate any different.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9768 Jan 8, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a reason to deny marriage to Gay men.......sorry, just because you believe marriage should be a certain way doesn't mean others do, and besides, you'd have to prevent all those heterosexual couples who are into swinging from marrying......I mean they aren't MONOGAMOUS.......lol!!!
Proving once again, there is no reasonable, rational, or scientifically supportable excuse for denial of equal treatment of "all persons" as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Since: Jan 08

Providence, UT

#9769 Jan 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe men are as capable of exclusive commitment as women; therefor a 'marriage' between two men would be less monogamous than traditional marriage.
Reason #31 for keeping marriage male/female: Monogamy.
The "I don't believe" reason for discrimination won't be upheld in any court, I believe.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9770 Jan 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
And still, no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law.
Society always changes. Some would still like to restrict the equal rights of various people of color, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, etc. Yet most see less irrational prejudice as a good thing, while others want to keep everything as it was when they were born or even go backward.
“Gay marriage would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion. It would likely decrease the number of those in society who tend to be viewed warily as ‘other’ and increase the number who are accepted as part of ‘us.’ In that respect, gay marriage would be a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea.” Anti-marriage equality director of the Institute for American Values David Blankenhorn, one of the few witnesses who testified in support of Prop 8.
Please don't compare yourself to "various people of color, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, etc". What you like to do with your winky doesn't really fit you into one of those catagories.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9771 Jan 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has not always been the same. There are 8 types of marriage in the bible alone. It has meant different things at various times and places. Women and children were property of the man and until recently, inter-racial marriage was not allowed.
Not all people have the same marriage rights. Denial of reality only changes reality in your mind, not in the law.
The legal marriages of gay couples are not treated equally to the legal marriages of straight couples from the same jurisdiction. Clearly, this is unequal treatment under the law. "DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
Marriage has always been an arrangement between the sexes. There is no SIGNIFICANT historical precedence for "gay marriage".

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9773 Jan 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Same sex marriage would harm marriage by decreasing monogamy; the marriage of two men is far less likely to be monogamous than the marriage of a man and a woman.
Which is the reason gay men are statistically quite promiscuous.

Oh no...did I actually put that in writing? Gay activists and the press have been trying to suppress or disprove that FACT for years now. I hope no one counters me with the new "gays are just good family folks like you" campaign.

Okay...let's hear it.

BTW...seen any gay pride parades lately? You "good family folks" need to talk to your PR people about that one.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9774 Jan 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Proving once again, there is no reasonable, rational, or scientifically supportable excuse for denial of equal treatment of "all persons" as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
We have equal treatment. We all live under the same laws. There are not separate laws for gays and straights.

You simply want to redefine marriage to include something it has never been.

A more accurate post would have been "proving once again, there is no reasonable, rational, or scientifically supportable excuse for not allowing the redefinition of marriage to include same sex couples as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution."

Oh wait...that doesn't make any sense.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9775 Jan 9, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
Which is the reason gay men are statistically quite promiscuous.
Oh no...did I actually put that in writing? Gay activists and the press have been trying to suppress or disprove that FACT for years now. I hope no one counters me with the new "gays are just good family folks like you" campaign.
Okay...let's hear it.
BTW...seen any gay pride parades lately? You "good family folks" need to talk to your PR people about that one.
I agree with your observations; if marriage is valuable because it promotes monogamy then including marriage as two men would decrease that value.

Thanks for your posts; keep up the good work.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9776 Jan 9, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't compare yourself to "various people of color, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, etc". What you like to do with your winky doesn't really fit you into one of those catagories.
Why should Gays and Lesbians be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing regardless of how one views a person's sexual orientation as a choice or innate if one's religious beliefs are protected and that IS a personal choice?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9777 Jan 9, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't compare yourself to "various people of color, religious beliefs, national origin, ethnicity, etc". What you like to do with your winky doesn't really fit you into one of those catagories.
Is being heterosexual only about sex?(If you believe it is, don't tell your wife or girlfriend if you want to keep your relationship.)

And what about gay women?

Being a gay person is about far more than having sex. For most, it includes finding a person with whom to spend your life.

But you dodge the point, which was; society always changes, yet there are always those who resist change and wish to continue prejudices, long after they have been shown to be irrational.

But since you bring it up, prejudice is the same in that it attempts to dehumanize a group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity, and personhood, to justify harming them through denial of equal treatment under the law, punishment, and worse.

Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights: "And yet while their story of oppression and injustice is not the same as ours, it is equally valid. African-Americans recognize injustice when we see it. Gays and lesbians have been incarcerated, brutalized, lobotomized, raped, castrated, and robbed of their jobs, families and children."

Rev. Dr. James Lawson is a distinguished United Methodist pastor who worked side-by-side with Dr. King training the activists who participated in the lunch counter sit-ins and the Freedom Rides of the 1960s. In 2004, he received the Community of Christ International Peace Award. Rev. Lawson said of the plight of many gay people: "Gays and lesbians have a more difficult time than we did. We had our families and our churches on our side. All too often, they have neither."

Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman, declared, "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is."

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 1 step forward, 2 steps back for LBGT rights in... 8 min Big Boob Babe 11
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Just Think 6,180
News New Art Therapy Studio Draws on Power of Expres... 19 hr Dive4lifeblue 2
News Daycare worker, 23, is charged with the murder Sun Fit2Serve 2
News Church of Scotland moves closer to letting mini... Fri Pope Closet Emeritus 2
News From the Mouth of Muhammad: 'Allah Will Wed Me ... May 26 Muslims lie all t... 2
News Taiwan court legalizes gay marriage in historic... May 24 The Wheeze of Trump 5
More from around the web