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

#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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

Santa Cruz, CA

#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.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9818 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No one has the "fundamental right" to marry their own sex. That is not what marriage is.

That training is not designed to simply curtail bullying at all. It is designed to teach other people's kids that homosexuality is normal and amoral. The bullying angle is just a ruse.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9819 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Some gay men are promiscuous while some are not. Some straight men are, some are not.
Really? That's your answer? Some are...some aren't?

Did you know that gay men account for 61% of new HIV infections. Why? Because they are statistically quite promiscuous.

Does that mean all gays are promiscuous? No. Does it have anything to do with gay marriage? No.

But it is the truth. Just be honest.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#9820 Jan 10, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What's "marriage equality"? You guys crack me up with your terms! Great PR work. Keep it up!

But I have to say in your case you go way overboard. Sometimes I think you are just looking for an opportunity to use the word "equal" as many times as possible in each post. You got it four times in this brief little post. Hooray!!

Do you really think people are that stupid?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#9821 Jan 11, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
I'm not sure why you keep refering[sic] back to that union with such a disasterous[sic] end to prove you point. He should have married Bosie.
His two sons, Cyril Wilde and Vyvyan Oscar Beresford Wilde disagree. Oscar Wilde was a devoted and loving father and his son's childhoods were happy. If he hadn't married Constance Lloyd, I doubt his children would have been born.

I find Oscar Wilde's disastrous end a perfect allegory for same sex marriage; it would harm homosexuals more than everyone else.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9822 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I find Oscar Wilde's disastrous end a perfect allegory for same sex marriage; it would harm homosexuals more than everyone else.
You really are determined to make yourself into the village idiot, aren't you? Obviously, Oscar and Bosie didn't marry or live together.

I can't say what would have happened if their relationship had been accepted by society. Perhaps they would have adopted some children in need. Perhaps they would have led a Bohemian lifestyle. But we do know that throwing Wilde into jail didn't do him any good.

If his marriage was so good, why was he carrying on with men and getting himself into trouble?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#9823 Jan 11, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
You really are determined to make yourself into the village idiot, aren't you? Obviously, Oscar and Bosie didn't marry or live together.
I can't say what would have happened if their relationship had been accepted by society. Perhaps they would have adopted some children in need. Perhaps they would have led a Bohemian lifestyle. But we do know that throwing Wilde into jail didn't do him any good.
If his marriage was so good, why was he carrying on with men and getting himself into trouble?
Perhaps they both would have been thrown in jail.

That doesn't change the fact, Wilde fathered two sons. If he hadn't married Constance, they wouldn't have been born.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#9824 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps they both would have been thrown in jail.
That doesn't change the fact, Wilde fathered two sons. If he hadn't married Constance, they wouldn't have been born.
Not necessarily true......remember a couple doesn't have to be married to have children!!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#9825 Jan 11, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Not necessarily true......remember a couple doesn't have to be married to have children!!!!
The purpose of marriage is so your kids won't be bastards.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9826 Jan 11, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#9827 Jan 11, 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.
different situations get different rights...
equal treatment, not equal rights is all you get...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#9828 Jan 11, 2013
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
No one has the "fundamental right" to marry their own sex. That is not what marriage is.
That training is not designed to simply curtail bullying at all. It is designed to teach other people's kids that homosexuality is normal and amoral. The bullying angle is just a ruse.
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.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9829 Jan 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps they both would have been thrown in jail.
That doesn't change the fact, Wilde fathered two sons. If he hadn't married Constance, they wouldn't have been born.
Just curious: In what ways do you think the world would have been worse off if Oscar and Bosie had taken two children out of orphanages instead of procreating with women who didn't satisfy them?

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Nuculur option 1,153,705
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Injudgement 165,320
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 37 min loose cannon 181,785
The uncomfortable truth about racism in America 1 hr fedupwiththemess 207
Who is the worst president since WWII ? 1 hr barefoot2626 1,089
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr Earthling-1 33,464
McAuliffe wants to ban gifts and trips for lawm... (Mar '09) 13 hr Sierra 16
More from around the web