Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9652 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!

#9833 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The purpose of marriage is so your kids won't be bastards.
Sorry, but that is NOT now or EVER been the sole purpose of Marriage!!!!

What a nasty thing to say about children!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#9834 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Oscar Wilde had two children by his wife Constance; why do you say he wasn't satisfied? Boise, Lord Alfred Douglas married his close friend, Olive Eleanor Custance and they one son, Raymond Wilfred Sholto Douglas; what's unsatisfying about having children?
I don't want to play,'what if'; the facts speak for themselves. Homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else. That's equal rights. Gender apartheid is a 'special right' not found in our Constitution.
There is a difference between having sex to procreate and getting pleasure from having sex with a woman who you're not attracted to.....otherwise, neither of them would have strayed from their satisfied marriages!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9835 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Oscar Wilde had two children by his wife Constance; why do you say he wasn't satisfied? Boise, Lord Alfred Douglas married his close friend, Olive Eleanor Custance and they one son, Raymond Wilfred Sholto Douglas; what's unsatisfying about having children?
I don't want to play,'what if'; the facts speak for themselves. Homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else. That's equal rights. Gender apartheid is a 'special right' not found in our Constitution.
Indeed, the facts do speak for themselves: Life married to a woman was completely unsatisfactory for Mr. Wilde who died much too young.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9836 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The purpose of marriage is so your kids won't be bastards.
Who cares? All kinds of people have kids without being married. Why do you call them bastards? That isn't very nice.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9837 Jan 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems you continue to ignore that the legal marriages of gay people are not treated equally to the same legal marriages of straight people from the same jurisdiction.
This is not equal treatment under the law.
States have the right to define their own marriage laws. Neither you nor I have the right to marry a man in Mass and then have that union be recognized in Texas. The law applies equally to us both.

As for DOMA I likely agree with you. If the people of Colorado decided they want to redefine marriage the Feds must honor it.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9838 Jan 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your perspective is one of someone who has never been bullied for being a gay person. I know better, both from personal experience and from working with young people.
Gay people still face harassment, especially in schools, and many have not yet developed the coping skills needed to deal with it. If you doubt anti-gay bullying still takes place, you are not reading these threads or the articles that demonstrate hate crimes still take place here and around the world.
Of course bullying of gays and others exist. Dealing with the bullying behavior is the answer to that problem. Teaching other people's kids your ideas about sexuality is not.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9839 Jan 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
In the spirit of honesty, remember "promiscuity" is being used here (and elsewhere) to justify denial of equal treatment under the law.
You already have equal treatment under the law.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet there are more promiscuous straight men, while many gay men are not, and the majority of gay men do not have HIV. Using the excuse of promiscuity and HIV to deny legal equality for all gay people also ignores these stats do not apply to gay women, yet are used to deny equality to gay women, who are the lowest risk group for HIV.
This is just one more excuse that is easily exposed as irrational when examined.
Sigh..."there are more promiscuous straight men"?

Really? I give up. You are hopelessly obsessed with a gay PR agenda.

BTW...I count 4 uses of the word "equal" in this post. Nice work!

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9840 Jan 12, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
"Marriage equality" means treating gay people the same under the same laws currently in effect for straight people. Because all of the same legal rules apply, "marriage equality" is a more accurate term than the others commonly employed.
Oh...well then by that definition we all already have "marriage equality". Can you prove I am not gay? Or that you are? Doesn't that need to happen for the laws to apply unequally in the first place?

And "marriage equality" is certainly not the more accurate term. If someone didn't already know it mean "gay marriage" they wouldn't know what the hell you were talking about. It is a PR term aimed at achieving legalized gay marriage. After all...who can deny anyone equality? Right?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9841 Jan 12, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed, the facts do speak for themselves: Life married to a woman was completely unsatisfactory for Mr. Wilde who died much too young.
Wilde was a well known degenerate and a pederast. Let's not presume to know what did or did not satisfy him...nor may him out to be a hero.

You guys need to go back to your PR people and get more training on presenting yourselves as good family folk just like the rest of us.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9842 Jan 12, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
States have the right to define their own marriage laws. Neither you nor I have the right to marry a man in Mass and then have that union be recognized in Texas.....
And yet, it is that way for every straight couple. And the reasons for it are obvious. Can you imagine the chaos if every marriage dissolved at a state border?

If that is ONLY to be inflicted on gay couples, out of animus alone, lawsuits will ensue. Many many lawsuits. Endless lawsuits. As well they should. Until even the most hateful and backward states drop the discrimination.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9843 Jan 12, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
You guys need to go back to your PR people and get more training on presenting yourselves as good family folk just like the rest of us.
We ARE good family folk - we don't need PR people to show that - and we are a bit better than some of the rest of you, since we don't believe that harming your families and denying you the ability to legally marry is beneficial to anyone.

Why would the behavior of Wilde have any bearing on anyone else but the man himself, or the people he was associated with at the time?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9844 Jan 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Oscar Wilde had two children by his wife Constance; why do you say he wasn't satisfied? Boise, Lord Alfred Douglas married his close friend, Olive Eleanor Custance and they one son, Raymond Wilfred Sholto Douglas; what's unsatisfying about having children?
......
People having children proves that they are satisfied with their marriages?

REALLY?

In the past, it was common for gay people to pass as straight, and marry for convenience. Those unions produced children, and I'm sure in many cases those children were wanted, and loved. But, does that make a good marriage? When you CANNOT be attracted to your poor spouse, and feel only attractions for people you can never openly love?

That we no longer feel this to be sensible is a GOOD thing. Would you want some closeted gay person marrying one of YOUR children for appearance sake? I've seen how that works, Dear, and it is a sick travesty of a marriage.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#9845 Jan 12, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course bullying of gays and others exist. Dealing with the bullying behavior is the answer to that problem. Teaching other people's kids your ideas about sexuality is not.
You are missing the point.

What "ideas about sexuality" would you be referring to? That being gay is natural for some people? That it's not chosen or catching, and that gay people should be treated the same way that every other American should be treated, legally and socially?

The children that are taught otherwise are the ones doing the bullying, aren't they?

What "ideas about sexuality" do you propose we teach children? Aren't the simple facts enough?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9847 Jan 12, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
States have the right to define their own marriage laws. Neither you nor I have the right to marry a man in Mass and then have that union be recognized in Texas. The law applies equally to us both.
As for DOMA I likely agree with you. If the people of Colorado decided they want to redefine marriage the Feds must honor it.
And still, you refuse to recognize that the legal marriage of a gay couple is not treated equally to the legal marriage of a straight couple from the same jurisdiction.

Reasonable people will admit this is not equal treatment under the law.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9848 Jan 12, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course bullying of gays and others exist. Dealing with the bullying behavior is the answer to that problem. Teaching other people's kids your ideas about sexuality is not.
"Ideology assailants report that their crimes stem from their negative beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality that they perceive other people in the community share. They see themselves as enforcing social morals." (APA)

The only way to prevent bullying is to change those negative beliefs before they are acted upon. Unfortunately for those who want to teach that being gay is some sort of disorder, that requires teaching that gay people are a natural minority of the human population, and should be treated the same as others.

Punishing the bullies after the fact does not prevent the harm that results to both the victim and the bully.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9849 Jan 12, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
You already have equal treatment under the law.
<quoted text>
Sigh..."there are more promiscuous straight men"?
Really? I give up. You are hopelessly obsessed with a gay PR agenda.
BTW...I count 4 uses of the word "equal" in this post. Nice work!
Talk about PR: You stick with the clearly false assertion we already have equal treatment under the law, even though the legal marriages of gay couples are not treated the same as the legal marriages of straight couples from the same jurisdiction. This is one of the standard anti-gay talking points.

Do you deny there are more promiscuous straight men than there are gay men?

You also fail to refute that using the excuse of promiscuity and HIV to deny legal equality for all gay people also ignores these stats do not apply to gay women, yet are used to deny equality to gay women, who are the lowest risk group for HIV.

As to the obsession assertion, my motivation comes from my first hand experience of the death and destruction caused by anti-gay prejudice and discrimination. Your motivation seems to be a desire to continue that deadly prejudice and legal discrimination.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9850 Jan 12, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh...well then by that definition we all already have "marriage equality". Can you prove I am not gay? Or that you are? Doesn't that need to happen for the laws to apply unequally in the first place?
And "marriage equality" is certainly not the more accurate term. If someone didn't already know it mean "gay marriage" they wouldn't know what the hell you were talking about. It is a PR term aimed at achieving legalized gay marriage. After all...who can deny anyone equality? Right?
When it appears someone does not know we are talking about allowing gay couples to participate under the same laws currently in effect for straight people, I use the phrase; "marriage equality for gay couples". But when marriage for gay couples is the topic, I shorten it to "marriage equality". Am I giving too much credit to the comprehension abilities of the opposition?

When two people show up to get a marriage license, sexual orientation is not a question. Gender is used in some states to deny that license to same sex couples. Marriage equality for gay couples requires treating a same sex couple the same as they would an opposite sex couple.

You should know by now, many have no problem with denial of equality. While no one can demonstrate a compelling and legitimate governmental interest for doing so, many are perfectly willing to deny equal treatment to gay people.(Remember DADT? DOMA?)

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9851 Jan 12, 2013
We cherish integration and diversity, especially in marriage. Same sex marriage is a step back toward antebellum morality; it is gender apartheid marriage.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9852 Jan 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
We cherish integration and diversity, especially in marriage. Same sex marriage is a step back toward antebellum morality; it is gender apartheid marriage.
Just maybe people would take you more seriously if you didn't make these inane pronouncements.

On second thought, no, we wouldn't.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#9853 Jan 12, 2013
Maybe you could focus on the issue; same sex marriage creates a new standard of gender partition marriage. Same sex marriage supporters think they support diversity but they act to destroy it in marriage.

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 Nicole Kidman's priest says actress hopes one d... 10 hr Sco-ttt 2
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 17 hr Lips9431 4,722
News Were 'Fixer Upper' Stars Chip and Joanna Gaines... 23 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 17
News Slovenians vote on whether to uphold same-sex m... (Dec '15) Mon fathiwady 13
News Gay 'marriage': A recipe for anarchy (Apr '15) Mon SaintSin242 37
News Landlord Caught Having Sex In Tenants's Bed Mon Mitts Gold Taliblets 8
News Kaine says Catholic Church might change on gay ... Mon filmsz 74
More from around the web