Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 Full story: The Skanner 9,656

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.

Full Story

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9790 Jan 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Until the 21st Century; all written law described marriage as gender integration; same sex marriage is gender segregation marriage. Where before we had a gender diverse institution of marriage now we have apartheid marriage.
In that sense; same sex marriage is like disunion marriage, just as if we had a new breed of racists.
Irrational appeal to emotion, misuse of terminology to inflame and defame.

Every two person marriage excludes all others. Yet this is not segregation, apartheid, or racism, and the suggestion it is, is outrageous at best.

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.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#9791 Jan 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I've never claimed marriage promotes monogamy; I claim that since men are more likely to stray than women, then the marriage between two men would decrease the likelihood of monogamy and therefor decrease monogamy in marriage harming that institution for everyone.
So you would deny an institution where one of the benefits to society is people entering into a monogamous relationship, curtailing promiscuity, but then turn around and chastise those same people for being promiscuous and use that as the reason to deny them the institution of marriage.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#9792 Jan 9, 2013
Brian is the perfect straight man.

Way to go Brian!!!

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9793 Jan 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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 wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9794 Jan 9, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
It changes our world in ways many feel are dangerous.

http://www.healthiersf.org/LGBTQ/InTheClassro...

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9795 Jan 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Statistically, MEN are quite promiscuous, especially in their younger years.
Yet we don't restrict any straight men from marriage, even those who brag about having had thousands of women.(Gene Simmons claims over 5,000, Wilt claims over 3,000)
And as it appears you may know, applying a statistical analysis to any and all individuals in that population is a fallacy. Not all men, straight or gay are promiscuous.
It also appears you would deny marriage equality to women, based on your beliefs about men. This is irrational.
Have you ever been to a Pride Parade? Or have you only seen the clips of the most outrageous parts promoted by those groups who oppose equal rights?
If you had seen a major parade, in addition to the muscle boys in Speedos and the flamboyant drag queens, you would have seen the contingents of doctors and medical professionals, firefighters, police officers, soldiers and sailors, as well as the various religious contingents, all dressed in either work related uniforms or average street clothes.
Gay people are a diverse population of people from just about every group you can imagine, including republicans. There is no one organization that speaks for all others.
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.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9796 Jan 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, the legal marriages of gay couples are not treated as equal to the legal marriages of straight couples from the same jurisdiction. "DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
Sounds messy. I guess we should just keep marriage as marriage.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#9797 Jan 10, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
It changes our world in ways many feel are dangerous.
http://www.healthiersf.org/LGBTQ/InTheClassro...
Well, as long as heterosexuals are just as susceptible to HIV/AIDS, STDS and other health issues and we prevent them from marrying......it's not an excuse to prevent Gays and Lesbians from marrying!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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

United States

#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

Owatonna, 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

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#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.

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.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama backer faces sexual abuse charges 3 min Detective Bubba C... 42
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min No Surprize 1,142,602
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 20 min Liar in Chief 162,940
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 26 min Rogue Scholar 05 180,732
Republicans strike early blow in U.S. midterm e... 1 hr scirocco 494
Obama: Americans want 'new car smell' in 2016 1 hr spud 9
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr IBdaMann 33,254

2012 Presidential Election People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE