Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Skanner

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.

Comments (Page 222)

Showing posts 4,421 - 4,440 of9,656
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4797
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
It's too late to talk about 'studying' polygamy too, it doesn't stop some of you from making the claim though....
Too late to talk about studying polygamy? WTF does that mean? Is polygamy already legal? When did that happen?

Seriously, that post didn't make any sense at all.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4798
May 11, 2012
 
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
No darling, I'm talking to you.
You really need to stop because you are coming up ridiculous.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4799
May 11, 2012
 
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Too late to talk about studying polygamy? WTF does that mean? Is polygamy already legal? When did that happen?
Seriously, that post didn't make any sense at all.
It exists in this country, and we know it exists. Let's not be coy....
Samatha

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4800
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over Documented Risk Concerns

>

WASHINGTON, D.C.,– Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.

This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.

According to the FDA, the ban is in place because,“A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”

The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.

The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”

Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion.“At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.

“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.“If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”

Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation,” reads the FDA’s policy.

“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”

Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA.“The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said.“Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”

A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Blo...

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4801
May 11, 2012
 
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!! Everything you are talking about is what ssm supporters want. Did we do a 'study' for them????
I imagine there are ongoing studies as we write this.

As for your comment "Everything you are talking about is what ssm supporters want" -- I'm not sure what you mean by that. SSM supporters don't necessarily want multiple spouses, so I don't see what you mean.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4802
May 11, 2012
 
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to stop because you are coming up ridiculous.
I don't think so...but you sure do look more and more ridiculous with each post.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4804
May 11, 2012
 
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll defend marriage my way, thank you. Who are you to tell me at what end to defend it at???
Because denying marriage to gay couples does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to advance the cause heterosexual marriage.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, in the court’s 128-page opinion, wrote that “although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.”

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships,” Reinhardt wrote.“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

The panel also rejected arguments by Prop 8 proponents that the purpose of the initiative was “to promote child rearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren.”

“Simply taking away the designation of ‘marriage,’ while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, did not do any of the things Proponents now suggest were its purposes,” the opinion says.“Proposition 8 ‘is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.’”

“It is enough to say that Proposition 8 operates with no apparent purpose but to impost on gays and lesbians, through the public law, a majority’s private disapproval of them and their relationships, by taking away from them the official designation of ‘marriage,’ with its societally recognized status. Proposition 8 therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause,” Reinhardt wrote.

“Proposition 8 ‘is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.’”

“Proposition 8 ‘is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.’”

“Proposition 8 ‘is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them.’”

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4805
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean like polygamists????
Cut the crap already. How can you advocate changing the "traditional definition of marriage" to include polygamy while at the same time claiming the "traditional definition of marriage" is one man one woman?

Are you and Brian G in the same psycho ward and craving CO2?

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4806
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
You can fight to have a seat on the next rocket to the moon if that makes you happy, it doesn't mean it will happen. Your 'happiness' is not anyone else responsibility.
WOW.
Didn't you claim you NEVER demean other people?

Repent or Jesus will stop bringing you that candy on Easter.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4807
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

farda wrote:
<quoted text>
THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN BY MAN. GAY SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR IS NOT NATURAL. YOU GAYS TRY SO HARD TO NORMALIZE YOUR NASTYNESS. DCK IS NOT MEANT 2 GO IN SHT HOLE PERIOD NO MATTER WHO WANTS IT OR NOT.
OK Here's a quote from the Bible:

Matt. 18:19-20,[GOD'S WORD] "I can guarantee again that if two of you agree on anything here on earth, my Father in heaven will accept it.

Look it up. Or are you saying that some stuff in the Bible isn't God's word?

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4808
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
The govenment has no such responsibility as ssm is not covered under the constititution. Sorry....
OH?

Care to provide a verifiable link to the Constitution that supports that?

I have one that counters your claim.

Amendment 9

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4809
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
Your marriage license only covers your state, not the federal government. The state can not tell the federal government what to recognize.
But you just inferred the Federal Constitution bans her marriage.

Please explain how Congress can pass a law (DOMA) that the Constitution forbids.

Or are you saying that when the Constitution says "the people" or "citizens" like in Amendments 9 and 14 it means something else?

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4810
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

To RnL:
I hope "That Fool" got a good price at Walmart for the shovel she's using to dig her hole deeper.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4811
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Cut the crap already. How can you advocate changing the "traditional definition of marriage" to include polygamy while at the same time claiming the "traditional definition of marriage" is one man one woman?
Are you and Brian G in the same psycho ward and craving CO2?
i'm beginning to wonder if she isn't brian g's sock puppet. they both seem to crave rarified air.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4812
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
i'm beginning to wonder if she isn't brian g's sock puppet. they both seem to crave rarified air.
I know what you mean. If I ignored the ISP addresses I'd almost think the 2 of them are in the same psycho ward with David Moore!

BTW please see post 993:

http://www.topix.com/forum/us/politics/T9OOF0...

and tell me what you think.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4813
May 11, 2012
 
Samatha wrote:
FDA: Gay Men Still Banned from Donating Blood Over Documented Risk Concerns
>
WASHINGTON, D.C.,– Despite attempts by pro-homosexual advocates to paint the homosexual lifestyle as just another, normal, and healthy lifestyle choice, the FDA has renewed its 1983 policy that gay men cannot donate blood, due to the high-risk nature of living an active homosexual lifestyle.
This past Wednesday the FDA stated that, despite mounting opposition to the policy, it will for medical reasons continue to uphold its ban on men who live or who have lived an active homosexual life from donating blood.
According to the FDA, the ban is in place because,“A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.”
The FDA policy relating to homosexual men is unique in its severity. While there is a lengthy list of criteria by which a potential donor may be deferred from donating blood (such as visiting particular African countries), such bans usually expire after a certain period of time. The ban on homosexual men, however, applies to any man who has ever had sex with another man, even once, subsequent to 1977.
The Administration, however, argues that the strictness of the ban is justified, pointing out that the “policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.”
Some, however, are arguing that the FDA’s policy is discriminatory against homosexual men. Arthur Caplan, in an editorial for NBC6 argues that new testing technologies alleviate any fear that patients may contract AIDS by receiving a tainted transfusion.“At one time, long ago, the gay-blood ban may have made sense. But it no longer does,” he said.
“If a man has sex with a high risk woman, he’s allowed back into the donation pool after 12 months,” complained Joel Ginsberg, the executive director of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.“If he has safe sex with another man, he’s banned for life.”
Recognizing that the area of homosexuality is a controversial realm, however, with pro-homosexual activists on the watch for any signs of discrimination, the FDA responded to accusations of discrimination in its updated official policy in the matter. The “deferral policy is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, such as HIV, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor’s sexual orientation,” reads the FDA’s policy.
“Surveillance data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that men who have sex with men and would be likely to donate have a HIV prevalence that is at present over 15 fold higher than the general population, and over 2000 fold higher than current repeat blood donors (i.e., those who have been negatively screened and tested) in the USA.”
Dr. Robertson Davenport, who is an associate professor of pathology at the University of Michigan Hospital, agrees with the decision of the FDA.“The data are clear that men who engage in sexual contact with other men, as a whole, have a significantly higher risk of HIV,” he said.“Given our testing is not perfect, we will increase the risk to patients.”
A number of European countries have similar bans pertaining to homosexual man. Canada also forbids homosexual men from donating blood, due to similar concerns.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Blo...
Thanks, this is very informative. I didn't know this.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4814
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
So draw up a contract. Just because you 'want' something doesn't mean you should 'have' something. I 'want' to be legally bonded to a millionaire, so what????
<quoted text>
Marriage is a right.
Get That Fool wrote:
This 'is' America. You can hold hands all you want. It doesn't mean people are not entitled to be offended by it...which is what I think you 'really' want.
<quoted text>[/
I'm not in your way. You are free to love who you want. You just aren't free to rearrange a sound and necessary tradition and societal cornerstone to suit your relationship.
<quoted text>
Shallow??? You want to talk 'shallow'??? The only reason you all want 'marriage' is for the money, don't preach to me about 'shallow'.
LOL. You just said you wanted to be egally bonded to a millionaire.
Anyway, stupid, gay people want to marry for the same reasons straight people do.
Get That Fool wrote:
I don't care how you experience love that is 'your' business. How we define 'marriage' in this country is all of our business.
Again, marriage is a right. Being against equal rights, like you are, is UN-American.


“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4815
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>OH?
Care to provide a verifiable link to the Constitution that supports that?
I have one that counters your claim.
Amendment 9
Baker v Nelson has ruled out unconstitutionality under these amendments of the constitution....

The couple first contended that Minnesota's marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes. If the court were to construe the statutes to require different-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution:[5]

First Amendment (freedom of speech and of association),
Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment),
Ninth Amendment (unenumerated right to privacy), and
Fourteenth Amendment (fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and sex discrimination contrary to the Equal Protection Clause).

Swish!!! And that's the game!!!!!

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4816
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
2 people does not mean any two people. A man and a woman does not equal a man and a man, a woman and a woman.
Why not, stupid? Let's hear it.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4817
May 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>But you just inferred the Federal Constitution bans her marriage.
Please explain how Congress can pass a law (DOMA) that the Constitution forbids.
Or are you saying that when the Constitution says "the people" or "citizens" like in Amendments 9 and 14 it means something else?
I didn't 'infer' anything. That's your 'throw in everything but the kitchen sink' mentality working against you....

Explain how DOMA became law...duh, like everything else becomses law....ever watch "School House Rock"??? "I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I've been sitting here on Capital Hill"...don't act like you don't know it.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,421 - 4,440 of9,656
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••