Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9647 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.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8268 Nov 19, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and you lurk and then spout unfunny insults..
Feckless

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8269 Nov 19, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
so attack his point like adults do, and leave the ad hominem stuff alone...
and given what you have said to me in the past, unprovoked, you can hold your breathe for that apology...
Feckless
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8270 Nov 19, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
No doubt about it.
you guys love me...admit it...
and I aint mad acha...
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8272 Nov 19, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Feckless
lol
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8273 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>lol
this contributes as much as any of your other posts do..
nothing.
toadmann

Masontown, PA

#8274 Nov 19, 2012
youtube.com/watch... …… non virgin ranting I dunno?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8275 Nov 19, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well maybe not you personally but there is certainly a "the Bible doesn't really say that" crowd who are desperately trying to change the doctrine of many denominations.

Its pretty obvious.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8276 Nov 19, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you skip your paranoia meds again?
Oh Mona...how can you expect to be taken seriously if all you are going to do is ignore the facts and take cheap shots?

It's boring.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8277 Nov 19, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your prejudice has no valid place in the law.
You are still free to teach your destructive, irrational prejudice at home. You just shouldn't expect the schools to do it for you. Teaching tolerance for those who are different from you is a lesson that will help children get along with their peers as well as transition into adults who will be interacting with others from different backgrounds. They don't have to like others, but it will be in their own interest if they can get along with others.
"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools." MLK
Well that is kind of an extreme all-or-nothing view.

I am all for teaching children to be loving and respectful of everyone. And I am not advocating any kind of "irrational prejudice".

I simply think its wrong that you and your friends get to teach your ideas about sexuality to other people's children against the wished of their parents.

You bring new light to the term "homo-fascist! Geesh!
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8278 Nov 19, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Mona...how can you expect to be taken seriously if all you are going to do is ignore the facts and take cheap shots?
It's boring.
Ignore the facts? Did you offer any? Do you know the difference between fact and opinion? Nobody is trying to take over your stupid church.
Mona Lott

West New York, NJ

#8279 Nov 19, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that is kind of an extreme all-or-nothing view.
I am all for teaching children to be loving and respectful of everyone. And I am not advocating any kind of "irrational prejudice".
I simply think its wrong that you and your friends get to teach your ideas about sexuality to other people's children against the wished of their parents.
You bring new light to the term "homo-fascist! Geesh!
Aw..... the public school system won't participate in your campaign of lies and outright deception? That's a real shame.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8280 Nov 20, 2012
WasteWater wrote:
You don't respect our marriages which is the essence of your defamation. NEXT
That's untrue, the issue is social policy and has nothing to do with respect. I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to redefine marriage.

It's as if the only way you can show respect for your fellow human being is to redefine basic cultural institutions (like marriage) to accommodate sexual predilection. The only way you can respect members of a culture that practice polygamy is to change your laws so your government permits polygamy. I think not.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8281 Nov 20, 2012
LuLu Ford wrote:
Here is what Brian posted previously. Brian quote: " Same sex unions have always existed; an accurate description of a tryst in a public restroom is a same sex union.." #3507 Sunday, 4-15-12 Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches Brian claims he has never posted anything defamatory. Brian lied.
So did you. You owe me an apology.
^^^This shows, they don't understand everything that offends them isn't defamation. L.F. is offended by the definition of same sex unions, so she blames me and calls it defamation. That's untrue since there is no vilification or untruth, just a description of nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tearoom_Trade

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8282 Nov 20, 2012
And Brian doubles down on his insults. He must take his cues from the Republican Party leadership.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8283 Nov 20, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's untrue, the issue is social policy and has nothing to do with respect. I've always written, there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality but that's no reason to redefine marriage.
It's as if the only way you can show respect for your fellow human being is to redefine basic cultural institutions (like marriage) to accommodate sexual predilection. The only way you can respect members of a culture that practice polygamy is to change your laws so your government permits polygamy. I think not.
I am married to a partner of the same sex. Do you approve?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8284 Nov 20, 2012
Polygamy redefines the "what" of marriage. Allowing same sex partners to participate under the rules currently in effect does not alter the "what" of marriage. It only changes the "who" may participate, in a way that does not deny any rights to opposite sex partners.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8285 Nov 20, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Polygamy redefines the "what" of marriage. Allowing same sex partners to participate under the rules currently in effect does not alter the "what" of marriage. It only changes the "who" may participate, in a way that does not deny any rights to opposite sex partners.
Indeed. Polygamy is a red herring.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8286 Nov 20, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Polygamy redefines the "what" of marriage. Allowing same sex partners to participate under the rules currently in effect does not alter the "what" of marriage. It only changes the "who" may participate, in a way that does not deny any rights to opposite sex partners.
That is false in every way. Same sex marriage certainly changes the "what" of marriage.

Are you nuts?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8287 Nov 21, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is false in every way. Same sex marriage certainly changes the "what" of marriage.
Are you nuts?
No. It's fairly simple.

When same sex couples marry, nothing changes. It's still about two unrelated consenting adults forming a loving and committed union. No definition change required. Marriage in our country has ALWAYS been about two people marrying and forming a couple.

With polygamy, it's not about the genders of the participants, it's about changing the definition from two, to many.

Whether the definition of marriage should be expanded to include polygamy is an entirely different argument, with completely different legal and societal ramifications, is it's own complex issue.

For same sex couples to marry, no such issues exist.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8288 Nov 21, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is false in every way. Same sex marriage certainly changes the "what" of marriage.
Are you nuts?
What legal rights and protections do you think have changed now that gay people are getting married?

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 3 min Frankie Rizzo 49,178
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 14 min hardscrabble 343
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 52 min Frankie Rizzo 25,591
Jade's Stink Ass Gay Cafe 59 min Hugely Hung Hetero 6
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr hardscrabble 5,939
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 2 hr Troll Hopper 156
News Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance Allowed To ... 2 hr Rev Don Wildmoan 13
News More 3 hr Little Cheerleader 15
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 4 hr Homey 69,526
More from around the web