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.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8182 Nov 15, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>

Why create additional institutions when there is already the proper civil and secular framework?
Wouldn't changing the name from marriage to civil partnership" simply be changing the name?
That would seem to be a waste of paper.
except the battle between you and them will rage FOREVER...
that's why...to finally SOLVE it...that's what compromises do after all...

I actually have really gotten a kick out of how offended everyone was at the suggestion you be given EXACTLY the same rights and the same name, but not "marriage"...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8183 Nov 15, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt it was an original idea for Jane, since it has been around for a long time, and many cities, counties, and some states have already tried civil partnerships under various names other than "marriage". Yet they have all found them to be inadequate, demonstrating what many of us learned a long time ago: Separate can never be equal. Different cannot be the same.
for the LAST time...it would NOT be a separate institution...I am not saying GAYS have a civil partnership...I am saying EVERYONE would..
lets drop the battle over the name marriage by getting rid of it altogether from the legal sense...

but look how you refuse to hear it and instead revert to post after post of separate is unequal?

and look how many expressed rage at the other side and all kinds of stuff about THEM not getting it, and look how many people actually understood the idea and responded rationally (I think maybe 2 posts).

Maybe if I just said, "get the govt out of the "marriage " business", all of you guys' auto-response mechanism would have been for support...

so again, the IDEA was simply to make LEGAL relationships ALL partnerships, and leave the religions to have "marriage". Yes gay people in religions that marry them would also be "married".

What a bigoted idea, RIGHT?

you owe me an apology.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8184 Nov 15, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
The advantage would be that Jane could feel like he finally won an argument about an hypothetical he dreamed up in the first place.
how do you "win" a discussion over a hypothetical?
how do you win on an opinion board at all?

oh right, you cant, so this is just more silly tripe from the most childish poster on this board...

I can see you have no real interest in discussing anything but pedantic insults and witless quips...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8185 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
except the battle between you and them will rage FOREVER...
that's why...to finally SOLVE it...that's what compromises do after all...
I actually have really gotten a kick out of how offended everyone was at the suggestion you be given EXACTLY the same rights and the same name, but not "marriage"...
What will you do when same sex couples get married and enjoy equality?

Will you stop whining then?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8186 Nov 15, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What will you do when same sex couples get married and enjoy equality?
Will you stop whining then?
Ask my grandkids...
it will take that long if it ever happens...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8187 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask my grandkids...
it will take that long if it ever happens...
I predicted Obama would win.

I also predict same sex marriage in California before the end of the year.

I predict same sex marriage within the next five years.

Will you stop whining then?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#8188 Nov 15, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
I predicted Obama would win.
I also predict same sex marriage in California before the end of the year.
I predict same sex marriage within the next five years.
Will you stop whining then?
I predict Jane will never stop whining.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8189 Nov 15, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
I predicted Obama would win.
I also predict same sex marriage in California before the end of the year.
I predict same sex marriage within the next five years.
Will you stop whining then?
would you?
nope.

why do you think your opposition is ever going to give up?
a compromise is the only way out...like abortion it will never be over...

BTW, I have my rights...so who is really whining?
I am only trying to show you that when people rely on procreation they are informed, not bigots....but you refuse to believe people don't hate you...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8190 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
would you?
nope.
why do you think your opposition is ever going to give up?
a compromise is the only way out...like abortion it will never be over...
BTW, I have my rights...so who is really whining?
I am only trying to show you that when people rely on procreation they are informed, not bigots....but you refuse to believe people don't hate you...
They will give up after they lose. They are irrelevant along with the procreation argument.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8191 Nov 15, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
I predict Jane will never stop whining.
he is a weird bird squawk
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8192 Nov 15, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
What will you do when same sex couples get married and enjoy equality?
Will you stop whining then?
Vermont has had same sex marriage for several years. It makes Jane crazy.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8193 Nov 15, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
They will give up after they lose. They are irrelevant along with the procreation argument.
Yes.... folks are still whining about how ending slavery was a big mistake. People are still whining about giving women the right to vote. Nothing ever changes in Jane's world. Change scares the piss out of him.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8194 Nov 15, 2012
If one cannot win an argument over a hypothetical, then who would continue to demand an answer to one? I know who... Someone who needs attention.... medical attention.

“sly as a fox”

Since: Mar 11

Over the Rhine

#8195 Nov 15, 2012
what is same sex marriage??????????I know there is different sex marriage but same sex marriage seems .....kind of like an impossibilty
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8196 Nov 15, 2012
iamcuriousnow wrote:
what is same sex marriage??????????I know there is different sex marriage but same sex marriage seems .....kind of like an impossibilty
Yeah.... it's been impossible for eight years now.

Jesus tap-dancing CHRIST!

“sly as a fox”

Since: Mar 11

Over the Rhine

#8197 Nov 15, 2012
somehow two men or two women married I don't know-who carries who over the threshold-which one gets the jitters on the first night?????

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8198 Nov 16, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
for the LAST time...it would NOT be a separate institution...I am not saying GAYS have a civil partnership...I am saying EVERYONE would..
lets drop the battle over the name marriage by getting rid of it altogether from the legal sense...
but look how you refuse to hear it and instead revert to post after post of separate is unequal?
and look how many expressed rage at the other side and all kinds of stuff about THEM not getting it, and look how many people actually understood the idea and responded rationally (I think maybe 2 posts).
Maybe if I just said, "get the govt out of the "marriage " business", all of you guys' auto-response mechanism would have been for support...
so again, the IDEA was simply to make LEGAL relationships ALL partnerships, and leave the religions to have "marriage". Yes gay people in religions that marry them would also be "married".
What a bigoted idea, RIGHT?
you owe me an apology.
To fulfill the definition of "bigotry", hate is required.

Prejudice does not require hate. "Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves." (Golinski v.)

We have demonstrated and documented using history, science, and law, that your proposal is not necessary, is unworkable and therefore irrational, as well as harmful. It relies on prejudice alone.

I have indulged your proposal in order to demonstrate it has no basis in reality and only causes harm. If any apology is in order, it should be from you for insisting we are somehow not worthy of the word recognized around the world as the primary relationship between two adults who have committed their lives to each other. No matter what your stated intent, your proposal is demeaning, stigmatizing, and insulting.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8199 Nov 16, 2012
iamcuriousnow wrote:
what is same sex marriage??????????I know there is different sex marriage but same sex marriage seems .....kind of like an impossibilty
There ISN'T a Same-Sex marriage or a Different-sex marriage.......THERE IS JUST MARRIAGE THAT EITHER INVOLVES A SAME-SEX COUPLE OR AN OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLE.......and as for your comment about who carries who over the threshold......who ever wants to do it......it matters not......and usually both get the pre-wedding jitters......it's only natural!!!

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8200 Nov 17, 2012
The majority is wrong; changing the definition of marriage harms everyone.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8201 Nov 17, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The majority is wrong; changing the definition of marriage harms everyone.
And yet, you have NEVER been able to show a single adverse affect. Not one. You have never proven that marriage is bad for gay couples and bad for their kids. You have never proven that married gay couples are harmful to society in ANY way.

That's because you can't.

And yet you are so divorced from reality that you continue to make statements to the contrary, knowing you can't logically back them up.

That's not a sign of a sane mind.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 34 min Just Think 22,559
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 40 min petrol 4,741
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 2 hr Sorry Hill 54
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 3 hr Sorry Hill 2,193
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 3 hr guest 534
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr River Tam 43,078
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 4 hr Dalton 20
More from around the web