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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9798 Jan 10, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
So you would deny an institution where one of the benefits to society is people entering into a monogamous relationship, curtailing promiscuity,
Marriage doesn't 'curtail promiscuity'; self control curtails promiscuity. Dave is confusing cause and effect.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
but then turn around and chastise those same people for being promiscuous
I've never chastised anyone for their private sexual behavior. Further; I've always said there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I'm opposed to radically redefining marriage; I'm not opposed to gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Many homosexuals oppose same sex marriage.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
and use that as the reason to deny them the institution of marriage.
One of the reasons I support marriage as one man and one woman is because considering two men as married would decrease monogamy in marriage.

If you value monogamy; keep marriage as one man and one woman.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9799 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Irrational appeal to emotion, misuse of terminology to inflame and defame.
In order to be defamatory, a statement must be false. There's no untruth in pointing out same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage.

If gender separation marriage 'inflames' your emotions then maybe you should rethink your opinion of same sex marriage. There's nothing irrational about pointing out marriage as male/female is gender integration while same sex marriage is gender apartheid marriage.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Every two person marriage excludes all others. Yet this is not segregation, apartheid, or racism, and the suggestion it is, is outrageous at best.
Every male/female marriage is gender diverse. The natural consequence of same sex marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage by removing standards of conduct.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
While denial of marriage equality is an expression of prejudice and discrimination, allowing gay people to participate under the same laws, expands the institution rather than restricting it.
Gay people have always married under the same laws as everyone else; I point out Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as two examples. Same sex marriage would remove gender diversity from the marriage requirements to institute discrimination marriage.

N.Y.E. would have to conclude, allowing more than two people to marry, removing the age requirement or the consent requirement would also expand the institution of marriage rather than restricting it. Not all expansion is good; that's why same sex marriage is bad.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9800 Jan 10, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds messy. I guess we should just keep marriage as marriage.
You seem confused. No one is trying to change a marriage into something other than a marriage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9801 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage doesn't 'curtail promiscuity'; self control curtails promiscuity. Dave is confusing cause and effect.
.
<quoted text>I've never chastised anyone for their private sexual behavior. Further; I've always said there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I'm opposed to radically redefining marriage; I'm not opposed to gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Many homosexuals oppose same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>One of the reasons I support marriage as one man and one woman is because considering two men as married would decrease monogamy in marriage.
If you value monogamy; keep marriage as one man and one woman.
Nice one. How does marriage between opposite gender individuals affect monogamy? You sure this isn't another fallacy? I see no connection. Let's hear your explanation.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9802 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>In order to be defamatory, a statement must be false. There's no untruth in pointing out same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage.
If gender separation marriage 'inflames' your emotions then maybe you should rethink your opinion of same sex marriage. There's nothing irrational about pointing out marriage as male/female is gender integration while same sex marriage is gender apartheid marriage.
.
<quoted text>Every male/female marriage is gender diverse. The natural consequence of same sex marriage is to destroy the institution of marriage by removing standards of conduct.
.
<quoted text>Gay people have always married under the same laws as everyone else; I point out Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter as two examples. Same sex marriage would remove gender diversity from the marriage requirements to institute discrimination marriage.
N.Y.E. would have to conclude, allowing more than two people to marry, removing the age requirement or the consent requirement would also expand the institution of marriage rather than restricting it. Not all expansion is good; that's why same sex marriage is bad.
More fallacious labels. A marriage is the joining of two entities. Giving same-sex couples equal protection of the law has no impact on what opposite-sex couples do. Please explain exactly how it does in your mind.
sickofit

Austin, MN

#9803 Jan 10, 2013
I do have hope. I know when my grandkids are adults most of the rleigous hate filled nazi fascist bigots should be dead or so old not worth mentioning.....TIME FOR BIGOTRY TO DIE ALONG WITH RELIGION..........

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9804 Jan 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem confused. No one is trying to change a marriage into something other than a marriage.
Marriage has always been an arrangement between the sexes. There is no SIGNIFICANT historical precedence for gay marriage.

BTW...I had to put the word "significant" in all caps because you knuckleheads like to dig up obscure and isolated forms gay partnerships and say "gay marriage is as old has history itself"!

You guys crack me up.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9805 Jan 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
More fallacious labels. A marriage is the joining of two entities. Giving same-sex couples equal protection of the law has no impact on what opposite-sex couples do. Please explain exactly how it does in your mind.
We have gone from the marriage ideal being "one man and one woman for life" to "the joining of two entities".

You see...this is why there are people like me who oppose you.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9806 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Marriage doesn't 'curtail promiscuity'; self control curtails promiscuity. Dave is confusing cause and effect.
.
<quoted text>I've never chastised anyone for their private sexual behavior. Further; I've always said there's nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I'm opposed to radically redefining marriage; I'm not opposed to gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Many homosexuals oppose same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>One of the reasons I support marriage as one man and one woman is because considering two men as married would decrease monogamy in marriage.
If you value monogamy; keep marriage as one man and one woman.
How does allowing same-sex marriage 'decrease monogamy' when you also claim marriage doesn't 'curtail promiscuity'?(FYI: promiscuity is the opposite of monogamy).

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#9807 Jan 10, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no SIGNIFICANT historical precedence for gay marriage.
Guess you were asleep when SSM passed BY THE PEOPLE!

As for your remark about significant, you are rapidly becoming insignificant.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9808 Jan 10, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
The opposition to gay marriage is not about your rights or an attempt to dehumanize you...whatever that means. Legalizing gay marriage changes the society we live in at its roots. It changes it for all of us.
And PLEASE spare the speeches!
You fail to show how your marriage has been changed by same sex couples getting married.

You also fail to show how recognizing same sex marriages changes society at its roots. Teaching that there are gay people, and they deserve to be treated like everyone else, is not required by marriage equality, as your link to SF schools shows.

You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights.
Unfounded fear of the future is not a legitimate excuse.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9809 Jan 10, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
It changes our world in ways many feel are dangerous.
http://www.healthiersf.org/LGBTQ/InTheClassro...
If you are going to deny fundamental rights, you need to provide a compelling and legitimate governmental interest. Unfounded fear of the future fails to qualify.

Teaching that there are gay people, and they deserve to be treated like everyone else, is not required by marriage equality, as your link to SF schools shows. It is a response to bullying and hate crimes, though admittedly, acceptance of gay people as equal citizens also implies their marriages deserve equal treatment under the law.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9810 Jan 10, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh...its not "gay" men who are promiscuous...its simply men in general! And its just not fair to look at statistics! Thanks for clearing that up.
I loved the quote how the parades are filled with "doctors and medical professionals, firefighters, police officers, soldiers and sailors"! Are you sure that wasn't a Village People concert there partner?
Well anyway, you sure are doing a great job with the latest "gays are just good family folks like the rest of you" line. You have great PR people. Keep up the good work.
Your sarcasm fails to refute the information. Some gay men are promiscuous while some are not. Some straight men are, some are not. Do you deny this?

While stats can be useful for looking at trends, they cannot be used to determine the behavior of every individual in the group.(unless every individual displays the trait being examined, which, again, is not the case here.) Do you not know this?

And how does this justify denial of marriage equality to gay women?

Have you ever been to a Pride parade? Or have you only seen clips of the most outrageous?

If you are going to deny equal fundamental rights, you need to provide a compelling and legitimate governmental interest. Unfounded fear of the future fails to qualify.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9811 Jan 10, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds messy. I guess we should just keep marriage as marriage.
The easy way to avoid the mess it to allow everyone to participate equally under the laws currently in effect. That keeps marriage as marriage for everyone.

And that is exactly what has happened in those jurisdictions that recognize marriage equality. Straight marriages have not changed, and gay couples are treated equally under the same laws, as required by the constitution.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9812 Jan 10, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
More fallacious labels. A marriage is the joining of two entities.
That's not the legal definition; under federal law marriage is one man and one woman. Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law; he was reelected by a majority.

.
WasteWater wrote:
Giving same-sex couples equal protection of the law has no impact on what opposite-sex couples do. Please explain exactly how it does in your mind.
Changing marriage laws will change divorce precedent, adoption precedent and add same sex dependent beneficiaries to our out of control government spending. It will impact EVERYONE.

Same sex marriage might be very harmful to gay rights since backlash and scapegoating are well known and documented historical and political forces.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9813 Jan 10, 2013
DaveinMass wrote:
How does allowing same-sex marriage 'decrease monogamy'
Allowing two men to be considered 'married' will decrease monogamy in marriage because males are more likely to stray than females.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
when you also claim marriage doesn't 'curtail promiscuity'?(FYI: promiscuity is the opposite of monogamy).
Self control curtails promiscuity; you don't need marriage to have a sexually exclusive relationship.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9814 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Irrational appeal to emotion, misuse of terminology to inflame and defame.
How does describing same sex marriage as gender segregation marriage 'inflame or defame'? How is it an emotional appeal when it's only a description of fact? You've used that line before, but never explained it.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Every two person marriage excludes all others.
True, but same sex marriage excludes an entire gender where traditional marriage is gender integration.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Yet this is not segregation, apartheid, or racism, and the suggestion it is, is outrageous at best.
I didn't call gender segregation marriage, racism; I said that it's like racism because it removes the need for gender diversity in marriage.

Marriage used to be a union of the genders but same sex marriage changes that to create a new apartheid.
.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
While denial of marriage equality is an expression of prejudice and discrimination, allowing gay people to participate under the same laws, expands the institution rather than restricting it.
Gay people have always participated under the same laws as everyone else; Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter are only two examples. Same sex marriage denies gender diversity in marriage and creates a new gender discrimination marriage.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9815 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Gay people have always participated under the same laws as everyone else; Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter are only two examples. Same sex marriage denies gender diversity in marriage and creates a new gender discrimination marriage.
I'm not sure why you keep refering back to that union with such a disasterous end to prove you point. He should have married Bosie.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9816 Jan 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's not the legal definition; under federal law marriage is one man and one woman. Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law; he was reelected by a majority.
.
<quoted text>Changing marriage laws will change divorce precedent, adoption precedent and add same sex dependent beneficiaries to our out of control government spending. It will impact EVERYONE.
Same sex marriage might be very harmful to gay rights since backlash and scapegoating are well known and documented historical and political forces.
DOMA will get tossed. Nobody is enforcing it presently either.

Might be harmful? How so? Nothing you said so far is very convincing.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9817 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You fail to show how your marriage has been changed by same sex couples getting married.
You also fail to show how recognizing same sex marriages changes society at its roots. Teaching that there are gay people, and they deserve to be treated like everyone else, is not required by marriage equality, as your link to SF schools shows.
You provide no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights.
Unfounded fear of the future is not a legitimate excuse.
My marriage will not be changed.

No one is trying to teach that there are gay people. That is silly and unnecessary. The teaching I link to is nothing more than an attempt to mold the ideas society has towards gays in future generations. Welcome to the gay agenda.

As for the denial of equal rights...we already have them. Our sexual thoughts and feelings don't entitle either of us to any special rights. The laws apply to us both equally.

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 What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 4 hr Pilots Nail Drivi... 5,595
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 4 hr WelbyMD 187
News Lesbian Methodist bishop faces challenge to her... 14 hr Rainbow Referee 2
News Bride of ISIS: From 'happily ever after' to hell 17 hr Silly 1
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Tue Retired teacher 31,984
News What to Watch: a JonBenet,a a Rodney King,a a E... Apr 24 KCinNYC 1
News 'This is the Trump era': Sessions takes aim at ... Apr 24 slick willie expl... 4
More from around the web