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.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

#8571 Dec 4, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
You have obviously never read the Goodridge decision. I once again provide you with a link
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gayma...
I'll try to explain again. What the Massachusetts SJC found was a right of the children to have married parents. It was not a right of the parents to be married and have children, but a right of the children to have married parents. The court found that the legal harm was to the children, a scenario that you seek to perpetuate. And to make sure you don't have any misunderstanding, the court did not find any harm to the child having same-sex parents. The harm to the child was solely in the fact that the state sought to deny those parents the ability to legally marry.
This was only one of the reasons given by the court when they rendered their decision. But because you keep harping on what is 'optimal' for the children, this, as one of its reasons, is most germane.
We sure do live in an upside down world now don't we? We have those amongst us who believe we need to legalize gay marriage because its better for the children? Insane.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Since: Jan 12

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

#8572 Dec 4, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
Oh come on now. You don't even know me. If you are going to throw insults make sure they have some substance to them. Otherwise it's just boring.
I don't need to. Your posts alone is all I need to know.
WaterBoarder wrote:
We sure do live in an upside down world now don't we? We have those amongst us who believe we need to legalize gay marriage because its better for the children? Insane.
Or maybe it's because everyone deserves equal rights. Insane concept, right?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8573 Dec 5, 2012
Quest wrote:
How does your wife feel about your lack of support for her right as a citizen to equal protection under the law, simply because she is female? Where in the constitution does it create a special class for women, with restricted civil and legal rights based on their gender, alone?[
The 14th Amendment gives everyone equal protection under the law but it explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal.

Recognizing gender differences doesn't make one gender subjugated under the other.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8574 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
.......
At the end of the day, however, it's important to recognize that there are no absolutes. But there is no reason anyone should ever be told that mutual attractions to other adults are bad or inappropriate. They should instead be taught to make sure they enter into mutually constructive relationships--whoever they may be attracted to.
Amen!

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8575 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
now apply this to the right to an abortion and see if it flies...
......
Abortion and marriage are not comparable. At least compare apples to other apples.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8576 Dec 5, 2012
The left has no absolutes; they are immoral. Can you name any secular reason to ban public nudity?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8577 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I dont think there is anything WRONG with gay parenting?
Why do you take the negative inference of everything people say?
Both gendered parents is OPTIMUM, that says next to nothing about gays...
......
But you want to ensure that every child of gay parents has unmarried parents, correct?

Why? How do the children of gay parents benefit form having unmarried parents?

And there really is no proof that having "both gendered" parents is optimum. It's lovely, no one denies that. But optimum?

You would need to show some valid proof of that claim.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#8578 Dec 5, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The left has no absolutes; they are immoral. Can you name any secular reason to ban public nudity?
Whereas you are full of absolutes...like saying everyone in a particular group (such as the left) is immoral. Millions of people and every single one of them is immoral?

Great to see that your posts still make no sense, Brian.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8579 Dec 5, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The left has no absolutes; they are immoral. Can you name any secular reason to ban public nudity?
That is an irrational statement, even from you. Why in the world would you assume that half the population has no morals, and all of them are on the left?

As to public nudity, one very rational secular reason to regulate it is simple hygiene. Would you want to sit on a chair where a naked person had oozed some bodily fluid or another?

And, really, so much of beach wear is so body revealing as to be almost nudity. Are you campaigning against string micro bikinis and tiny little speedos?

And don't try to tell us that only the "left" wears such revealing things.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8580 Dec 5, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
The left has no absolutes; they are immoral. Can you name any secular reason to ban public nudity?
Good taste.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8581 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8582 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You can say that, but you cannot support it..
you can say its not true, but you cannot support that denial...
there is no evidence that suggests a child doesn't do best with his/her biological parents. you do have (poor, but some)evidence that says that gays in most instances can do about as good a job...

is a well educated and loving gay couple better than an abusive straight couple?
I would say yes.

So it is not a fair assessment to claim they are "inferior".

BUT if the two couples were equal in every other way, the straight couple has something the gays don't, both a mom and dad...

Can you really claim with a straight face that a child would CHOSE having two dads over having a mom?
You have absolutely no proof of that assertion and I have our entire human existence to support me...
I mean, you guys have to realize that you can have studies, but we ALL grew up in families and have a little experience that cannot be negated by a slick study...

Beyond that, for example, we want our kids to be healthy, so we encourage them to eat healthy food, and it is not a reasonable ground to deny this based on the fact that we have a lot of fat kids...

we want them to eat apples, does that mean bananas are inferior?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8583 Dec 5, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Abortion and marriage are not comparable. At least compare apples to other apples.
a claimed fundamental right...

yes, it is logical to discuss other rights when assessing if marriage is one...

abortion is a right that is not equal to all people, but rests only with a woman and denied to men based on their reproductive abilities...

this kinda cuts against what you claim is possible doesn't it?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8584 Dec 5, 2012
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
But you want to ensure that every child of gay parents has unmarried parents, correct?
Why? How do the children of gay parents benefit form having unmarried parents?
And there really is no proof that having "both gendered" parents is optimum. It's lovely, no one denies that. But optimum?
You would need to show some valid proof of that claim.
We don't give student loans to those who don't go to school...
By your logic you would say we want to harm the non students...but that's not even remotely true is it?

And how many of those kids are the kids of both spouses?
NONE?
SO there is no parents to encourage to stay together, the "parents" are already not together...

a rational distinguisher...

in the end, you are a non student whining that you don't get a federal student loan...
"students use theirs to buy a car, I need a car, so I should get the money too!"

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8585 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't give student loans to those who don't go to school...
By your logic you would say we want to harm the non students...but that's not even remotely true is it?
And how many of those kids are the kids of both spouses?
NONE?
SO there is no parents to encourage to stay together, the "parents" are already not together...
a rational distinguisher...
in the end, you are a non student whining that you don't get a federal student loan...
"students use theirs to buy a car, I need a car, so I should get the money too!"
Perhaps there are other investments that young people would like to make to assure themselves a more productive future. They should make their case for government assistance.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8586 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps there are other investments that young people would like to make to assure themselves a more productive future. They should make their case for government assistance.
denying them money harms them and does nothing to discourage going to college...
we should give a student loan to EVERYONE...I mean equal protection and all...
It must be bigotry against young entrepreneurs, right?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8587 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
denying them money harms them and does nothing to discourage going to college...
we should give a student loan to EVERYONE...
As long as they borrow it from their parents, it's fine with me.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8588 Dec 5, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
As long as they borrow it from their parents, it's fine with me.
isn't that what Mitt said and got burned on?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8589 Dec 5, 2012
WaterBoarder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wilde was a well known degenerate. Probably your hero? Thanks for posting.
Your personal attack on me and Oscar fails to refute the information provided.

Selfishness is expecting others to live their lives as you believe is best for you.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8590 Dec 5, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The 14th Amendment gives everyone equal protection under the law but it explicitly recognizes male and female as unequal.
Recognizing gender differences doesn't make one gender subjugated under the other.
The gender difference in voting recognized in the 14th amendment was nullified by the 19th amendment which said the right to vote cannot be denied on the basis of sex.

Gender differences are no longer recognized by the constitution.

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 Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 29 min guest 490
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 59 min Frankie Rizzo 1,845
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr patrol 4,677
News Will Jewish Fight Over Gay 'Conversion Therapy'... 1 hr Dawson 21
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 22,322
News 'Gay cake' appeal decided 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 18
News Federal court in Chicago to hear LGBT-workplace... 3 hr Gay Peace on Earth 6
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 10 hr Respect71 42,765
More from around the web