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: Mar 07

United States

#8220 Nov 18, 2012
iamcuriousnow wrote:
<quoted text>
because a marriage(union between male and female) the groom(the male) carries the bride(the female) across the threshold and then the groom(the male) wants to have sex with the bride(the female) and the groom(the male)gets all nervous...that's the wedding night jitters.
How odd. I've never heard of the "bride carrying" wedding requirement. What states have laws governing that?

And, since most brides and grooms have been having sex long before the wedding, I wonder why those jitters are required.

You have some strange ideas, or perhaps just immature ones.

I'm thinking perhaps you are a bit to young to understand how weddings work, true?

Since: Mar 07

United States

#8221 Nov 18, 2012
Inquiring Mind wrote:
Why not simply call such a church that doesn't really care about what its holy book says about anything about is a law unto itself what it reallly is? A ridiclous travesty.
All Christian churches value the Bible. But who gets to decide which verses are cherry-picked or ignored by any given denomination? You?

What is your level of Biblical education and scholarship, for you to have the ability to decide the focus and beliefs of ALL Christian denominations?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8222 Nov 18, 2012
If what a holy book or relgion says about a certain behavior is unnacceptable to us, it makes far more sense for us to rejecct to

1. write our own holy book,

2. join another religion,

3. or invent our own

than to strive might and main to change it by trying to force our moral preferences on it.

IMHO

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#8223 Nov 18, 2012
If what a holy book or relgion says about a certain behavior is unnacceptable to us, it makes far more sense for us to reject it by

1. writing our own holy book,

2. joining another religion,

3. or inventing our own religion

than to fanatically strive might and main to change it by trying to force our moral preferences on it.

IMHO

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8224 Nov 18, 2012
Brainiac2 wrote:
If what a holy book or relgion says about a certain behavior is unnacceptable to us, it makes far more sense for us to reject it by
1. writing our own holy book,
2. joining another religion,
3. or inventing our own religion
than to fanatically strive might and main to change it by trying to force our moral preferences on it.
IMHO
While some take those options, others have changed the translations and interpretations of the bible from early on and throughout history. The modern English translation includes the prejudices of the translators:

"The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century AD. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. He also linked "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" upon cities as being due to "such crimes", during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

"Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality.

Alleged references to homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the original Greek texts." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)

"Several books already exist attempting to demonstrate that the Christian Bible does not, in fact, condemn consenting-adult homosexuality. But God is Not a Homophobe has a unique perspective in that the author has a lifetime of experience in pastoring hard-core fundamentalist churches. His former bitter opposition to all forms of homosexuality has given way to a rational, unbiased acceptance that the Bible says hardly anything about homosexuality, and what it does say cannot honestly be used to condemn consenting same-sex unions." "God is not a Homophobe: An unbiased look at Homosexuality in the Bible" by Philo Thelos
http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/view-item...

"What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Daniel Helminiask, PH.D., was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1967 and is incardinated in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. From 1981-1985 was Assoc Prof for Systematic Theology at Oblate School of Theology and earlier completed his Ph.D. in systematic theology at Boston College and Andover Newton Theological School. He concludes the Bible says absolutely nothing about homosexuality being sinful when you examine the actual Hebrew/Greek texts."

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8225 Nov 18, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
While some take those options, others have changed the translations and interpretations of the bible from early on and throughout history. The modern English translation includes the prejudices of the translators:
"The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century AD. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. He also linked "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" upon cities as being due to "such crimes", during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
"Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality.
Alleged references to homosexuality in I Corinthians and I Timothy are the inventions of anti-gay translators. They are not in the original Greek texts." (Rev. Dr. Mel White)
"Several books already exist attempting to demonstrate that the Christian Bible does not, in fact, condemn consenting-adult homosexuality. But God is Not a Homophobe has a unique perspective in that the author has a lifetime of experience in pastoring hard-core fundamentalist churches. His former bitter opposition to all forms of homosexuality has given way to a rational, unbiased acceptance that the Bible says hardly anything about homosexuality, and what it does say cannot honestly be used to condemn consenting same-sex unions." "God is not a Homophobe: An unbiased look at Homosexuality in the Bible" by Philo Thelos
http://www.trafford.com/4dcgi/view-item...
"What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Daniel Helminiask, PH.D., was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1967 and is incardinated in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. From 1981-1985 was Assoc Prof for Systematic Theology at Oblate School of Theology and earlier completed his Ph.D. in systematic theology at Boston College and Andover Newton Theological School. He concludes the Bible says absolutely nothing about homosexuality being sinful when you examine the actual Hebrew/Greek texts."
Others leave the church where they find rejection and marginalization and go toward something more fulfilling.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8226 Nov 18, 2012
Quest wrote:
And yet, you have NEVER been able to show a single adverse affect....That's not a sign of a sane mind.
^^^Defamation is adverse affect.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8227 Nov 18, 2012
Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health: "We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8228 Nov 18, 2012
While equal rights should never depend on any vote, Maryland has now approved equality through the legislative process, with aproval of the voters, ending the official defamation of its gay residents.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

#8229 Nov 18, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
While equal rights should never depend on any vote, Maryland has now approved equality through the legislative process, with aproval of the voters, ending the official defamation of its gay residents.
about time

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#8230 Nov 18, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Defamation is adverse affect.
So why do you come here defaming gays and lesbians Brian? That isn't very nice.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#8231 Nov 18, 2012
Brainiac2 wrote:
If what a holy book or relgion says about a certain behavior is unnacceptable to us, it makes far more sense for us to reject it by
1. writing our own holy book,
2. joining another religion,
3. or inventing our own religion
than to fanatically strive might and main to change it by trying to force our moral preferences on it.
IMHO
simply because nobody is attempting to change either religion or any 'holy' book. they are striving to change civil law which, in the u.s, has nothing to do with any religion or any holy book.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8232 Nov 18, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Health: "We know for certain that lesbian and gay individuals suffer harm to their physical and psychological health, and to their relationships and quality of life, as result of the shame, isolation and stigma accrued from their social and legal disenfranchisement."
Which is why your real goal is full social acceptance...not simply "equal rights". And hey...if that means using the public schools to indoctrinate other people's kids against the wishes of their parents so be it.

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

Its nice to cut through the crap every now and then and just put the truth out there...huh?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8233 Nov 18, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
simply because nobody is attempting to change either religion or any 'holy' book. they are striving to change civil law which, in the u.s, has nothing to do with any religion or any holy book.
Not true. They are striving to change civil law, public perception, AND religious doctrine. Its an "all of the above" strategy.

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#8234 Nov 18, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. They are striving to change civil law, public perception, AND religious doctrine. Its an "all of the above" strategy.
and you still have that label stuck over your eyes, i see.

Since: Mar 07

United States

#8235 Nov 19, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. They are striving to change civil law, public perception, AND religious doctrine. Its an "all of the above" strategy.
No, not so. Civil laws, YES, public perception, YEP.

Religious doctrine, not one bit, unless so-called religious people try to change that religious doctrine into civil laws that apply to the rest of the population.

NO ONE should have to live the the religious doctrines of a religion they do not follow.

It's just that simple.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8236 Nov 19, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. They are striving to change civil law, public perception, AND religious doctrine. Its an "all of the above" strategy.
Did you skip your paranoia meds again?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8237 Nov 19, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is why your real goal is full social acceptance...not simply "equal rights". And hey...if that means using the public schools to indoctrinate other people's kids against the wishes of their parents so be it.
http://www.healthiersf.org/LGBTQ/InTheClassro...
Its nice to cut through the crap every now and then and just put the truth out there...huh?
Since facts don't seem to enter into your thought process, your best course of action would be to homskool your spawn. Then YOU can teach them whatever nonsense you like. Don't expect public schools to further your wacky religious agenda.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#8238 Nov 19, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Defamation is adverse affect.
Then take your proof of defamation, and your receipts for repair, and head to the courthouse. File suit. Go ahead. Put your money where your mouth is.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#8239 Nov 19, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
So why do you come here defaming gays and lesbians Brian? That isn't very nice.
I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I've never defamed gays or lesbians on any forum.

Why does W.W. write defamations?

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
Black churchgoers break with leading Democrats ... (Apr '12) 4 min Brian_G 1,898
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 min Reverend Alan 5,438
Jindal defends January prayer rally at LSU campus 15 min Foster 37
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 20 min Pope Bennie s Closet 4,974
Egypt's gays go deeper underground, fearing cra... 20 min Derrick 3
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 23 min BiblicalTruths 201,160
Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from th... 24 min d pantz 67
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 50 min fedupwiththemess 26,669
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 1 hr Pope Bennie s Closet 2,825
More from around the web