Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Mar 1, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Skanner

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.

Comments
9,141 - 9,160 of 9,656 Comments Last updated Nov 19, 2013

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9725
Jan 7, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
Yea, you do.....when you make a comment that heterosexual couples benefit or contribute to society as if Gay and Lesbian couples or individuals don't.......yep, you harm others!!!
My observation that heterosexual couples provide the benefit of posterity while homosexual couples can't isn't harm. Your being oversensitive; many homosexuals are excellent parents for adopted children. That doesn't change the facts of life.

.
NorCal Native wrote:
Brian, LOOK AROUND YOU........the planet is on the verge of OVER-POPULATION....we only have so much natural resources and if more houses have to be built, more highways have to be built, more land has to be destroyed........how will this planet survive?
I disagree, the problem is underpopulation and lack of growth. We've never run out of any mineral resource in the course of human history. Land isn't destroyed when you build on it, it's called improvement.

Earth has lasted 4.5 billion years; humanity's not likely to last in the long run but the Earth abides.

.
NorCal Native wrote:
Actually you lie on this statement ......because that is why you claim Gays and Lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry!!!
I've never claimed gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry; they always have under the same laws as everyone else. I claim nobody should be allowed to redefine marriage to satisfy sexual predilection.

.
NorCal Native wrote:
Nope, I don't read your comments on a narrow bases, I take them as you intend because otherwise you wouldn't be here day in and day out posting the stuff that you do!!!!
Likewise; I'm sure.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9726
Jan 7, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
Again, if monogamy is not a requirement for marriage, then how could allowing 2 men, or 2 women or an opposite-sex couples from marrying considering that heterosexuals have been known not to be monogamous because some have open-marriages or swing!!!
???

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9727
Jan 7, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
The post I quoted is an example of an argument based on emotion rather than reason or facts. Scalia would not feel defamed by the evidence he himself has supplied demonstrating he is anti-gay. He seems proud of it...
I disagree, Scalia isn't anti-gay; he's anti-judicial activism.

I challenge you to provide a quote from Scalia where he denigrates or insults gays or lesbians. Calling you on false defamation isn't an argument to emotion; it describes the way you argue ad hominem instead of arguing the issues.

.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9728
Jan 7, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Demeaning insults from Brian: " 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
It's an observation; opposite sex unions have always existed; an accurate description of a tryst in a parked car is an opposite sex union. Your too sensitive; that comment wasn't about your personal life; it's about human nature. If that demeans or insults you; that's your problem.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Brian again: "I'm claiming Not Yet Equal promotes antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, irrational fear, hostile behavior and violence by ignoring true evil and using homophbia[sic] to defame political opponents." #2020
( 12-5-13 Gay Marriage Chicago Il.)
Check your quote; those were the words Not Yet Equal used; if you find that insulting then you find his post insulting. Also, I didn't misspell homophobia.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Brian again: "Same sex marriage is a form of social decadence, there is no written history of any government with same sex marriage longer than 13 years old." #9686 Brian, 1-6-13 Maryland Gay Marriage Could...
Decadence: characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Again, you fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
There is no denial of equal treatment; I deny special treatment to redefine marriage to satisfy sexual predilection. There's no law against same sex marriage and homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9729
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>My observation that heterosexual couples provide the benefit of posterity while homosexual couples can't isn't harm. Your being oversensitive; many homosexuals are excellent parents for adopted children. That doesn't change the facts of life.
.
<quoted text>I disagree, the problem is underpopulation and lack of growth. We've never run out of any mineral resource in the course of human history. Land isn't destroyed when you build on it, it's called improvement.
Earth has lasted 4.5 billion years; humanity's not likely to last in the long run but the Earth abides.
.
<quoted text>I've never claimed gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry; they always have under the same laws as everyone else. I claim nobody should be allowed to redefine marriage to satisfy sexual predilection.
.
<quoted text>Likewise; I'm sure.
To funny Brian.......it okay to marry as long as you marry the way I think you should......like I care about what you think I should do in order to benefit as a Citizen of this Country........sorry, but I should be able to marry the person who I want to share my life with not simply someone who has the proper opposite plumbing as me......a concept you don't get!!!

Aren't you trying to keep the definition of marriage one way based on what you believe one's sexual predilection should be? Instead of what it is?

You seriously believe that our NATURAL RESOURCES have not been depleted at all since humans have been around? Amazing that you can't see that whole species of animals have been lost because of over-population, profitability and land development!!!

How many human babies will be born today? Roughly 10,000 in just the United States......how can that be considered under-populated or lack of growth? Roughly 300,000 children are born in the US every month, which doing the math on under conservative numbers would show that roughly 3.6 million children are born every year just in the US a lone........I seriously doubt that 3.6 million people die every year because that would be the only way to prevent over-population.....and we aren't even discussing the amount of children born every year around the world!!!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9730
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
There is no reason to believe allowing gay people to participate under the laws currently in effect would lead to less monogamy. There are many reasons to believe it would lead to more monogamy for same sex couples who choose to get married.
Prove it.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Fear mongering based on "what if" scenarios fail to qualify as a legitimate governmental interest,
You call it 'fear mongering' and I call it considering the consequences of changing public policy. Once someone stops thinking about how it feels and considers the results of their actions they stop being a liberal and become a conservative.

.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
while reduction in disease transmission is a legitimate governmental interest served by promotion of marriage for same sex couples as well as opposite sex ones.
On the other hand, increasing sexual disease transmission using by creating a false sense of safety through marriage would harm legitimate governmental public health interests. You don't need marriage to have an exclusive sexual relationship and theirs no evidence that same sex marriage will provide monogamy.

Here's the end of the story for the first same sex marriage in the USA:

Couple Who Fought for Gay Marriage Files for Divorce
In 2003, Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples in Massachusetts that sued for the right to marry. The lawsuit led to the historic court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the state. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage...

http://www.totaldivorce.com/news/articles/soc...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9731
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
define monogamy...
does a sperm donor who is not one of the spouses count?
does a surrogate the old fashioned way count?
unless its the turkey baster, you have a monogamy problem...
A third party required to have kids? tell me again how different polygamy is?
For most, monogamy means being married or otherwise committed to one person at a time.

Straight couples who use assisted reproduction do not consider it a violation of monogamy, nor polygamy. It is irrational to apply those concepts to assisted reproduction or adoption.

Polygamy is an entirely different arrangement because it requires changing the property divisions and child custody arrangements as well as the social dynamics of society. Treating gay people equally under the laws currently in effect requires no other changes, nor does it change the social dynamics of society for straight people.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9732
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree, Scalia isn't anti-gay; he's anti-judicial activism.
I challenge you to provide a quote from Scalia where he denigrates or insults gays or lesbians. Calling you on false defamation isn't an argument to emotion; it describes the way you argue ad hominem instead of arguing the issues.
.
You are projecting again. I give you legal arguments and you reply with unfounded fears of the future, empty bumper sticker slogans, and the same old irrational and discredited assertions, and insults.

I believe there is an article currently on this site that displays Scalia's anti-gay comments.

Again, you fail to provide any legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law as required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9733
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It's an observation; opposite sex unions have always existed; an accurate description of a tryst in a parked car is an opposite sex union. Your too sensitive; that comment wasn't about your personal life; it's about human nature. If that demeans or insults you; that's your problem.
.
<quoted text>Check your quote; those were the words Not Yet Equal used; if you find that insulting then you find his post insulting. Also, I didn't misspell homophobia.
.
<quoted text>Decadence: characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence.
.
<quoted text>There is no denial of equal treatment; I deny special treatment to redefine marriage to satisfy sexual predilection. There's no law against same sex marriage and homosexuals have always married under the same laws as everyone else.
I think most will see your insults are in fact insults.

I provided a definition of Homophobia. You chose to use that definition to defame me by applying that definition to me without any supporting evidence.

And again, the legal marriages of gay couples are not treated equally to the same legal marriages of straight people from the same jurisdiction by the federal and some state governments. This is not equal treatment under the law.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9734
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Brian_G wrote:
Here's the end of the story for the first same sex marriage in the USA:
Couple Who Fought for Gay Marriage Files for Divorce
In 2003, Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples in Massachusetts that sued for the right to marry. The lawsuit led to the historic court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the state. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage...
http://www.totaldivorce.com/news/articles/soc...
Big deal.....they got divorced.......married couples do that at least 50% of the time........and you have clearly stated that you see nothing wrong with couples separating and divorcing....so, why the stink over this couple's divorce? At least they didn't have to jump through a bunch of patch-worked laws to end their marriage like some other legally married Same-Sex couples have just because they live in a state that doesn't recognize that they were ever married in the first place!!!

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9735
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
Couple Who Fought for Gay Marriage Files for Divorce
In 2003, Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples in Massachusetts that sued for the right to marry. The lawsuit led to the historic court ruling legalizing gay marriage in the state. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage...
Julie and Hillary lasted longer than:

Zsa Zsa Gabor and Felipe DeAlba -- less than 24 hours
Britney Spears and Jason Alexander -- 55 hours
Carmen Electra and Dennis Rodman -- 9 days
Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds -- 14 days
Axl Rose and Erin Everly -- 26 days
Drew Barrymore and Jeremy Thomas -- 29 days
Chris Kattan and Sunshine Tutt -- 42 days
Pamela Anderson and Rick Salomon -- 60 days
Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries -- 72 days
Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock -- 114 days
Lisa Marie Presley and Nicolas Cage -- 3 months
Charlie Sheen and Donna Peele -- 4 months
Renee Zellweger and Kenny Chesney -- 4 months

All male/female couples that you tout. And all legal and valid in all 50 states and by the federal government. And somehow you think these marriages are more important than the gay and lesbian couples that have had long engagements forced upon them because you want their government to deny them civil marriage equality.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9737
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Not all marriages are monogamous. Monogamy isn't a requirement for marriage. Isn't it possible, changing marriage to consider two men as married might decrease the trait of monogamy in marriage and harm everyone (including homosexuals) in the process?
People practicing sex with one partner in a committed relationship is a marriage ideal. It is in the best interest of the state to promote that ideal as a way to stem the tide of STDs.

Answer to your question. NO it would not. Marriage is about commitment. Are you saying you don't believe in marriage commitment?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9738
Jan 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
except polygamy which has issues which we could never figure a way to make work, right?
Still waiting for your version of polygamy that is fair and equal to all participants and that is supported by a significant portion of the polygamous community. You can change your name, but your spots never change.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9739
Jan 7, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
You may discount the documentation showing same sex marriage is as old as history as insignificant if you choose. Yet clearly, it is nothing new, and to claim otherwise as so many who want to deny equality do, is to deny history.
Let's be honest. The only reason people don't want gay marriage is they disagree how that changes our society. You won't hear that one argued in court...but its the truth.

And there is no significant historical precedence for gay marriage. It is a recent social experiment.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9740
Jan 7, 2013
 
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't take an "activist judge" to see that there can't be laws in a state that irrationally discriminate against a minority group...
Does what you like to do with your winky really make you a "minority group"?

;]

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9741
Jan 7, 2013
 
Brian_G wrote:
I've listed many reasons to keep marriage male/female. Civilizations don't last forever, they decay and die. Same sex marriage is a form of social decadence, there is no written history of any government with same sex marriage longer than 13 years old.
Oh but I can hear it now..."they just didn't understand homosexuality as we do today"!

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9742
Jan 7, 2013
 
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
This includes the Bible, The Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Gnostic Gospels and all Holy Books.
You don't even believe what is clearly written in your Bible.
Really?

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9743
Jan 7, 2013
 
Ray wrote:
Am I the only person who sees the similarities between the pro-"gay marriage" crowd and the pro-abortion crowds? They both believe in rights that do not exist.
Bingo!

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9744
Jan 7, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is a fundamental right.
They are very different arguments. The only similarity is; they are both about the right of the individual to self determination.
Marriage has been clearly and repeatedly established as a fundamental right of the individual. The only remaining question is whether gay people can be excluded from the equal treatment required by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution.
"In the courtís final analysis, the governmentís only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion: DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA ...
All "people" have the same marriage rights. There are no special rights for "non-gays" at all.

Besides, how does one prove they are "gay" or "straight" to claim these special or unequal rights?

You simply want to change marriage to something other than what it is or always has been.

“You wish you were here!!”

Since: May 09

The OC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9745
Jan 7, 2013
 
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>
Hate to tell you, Buddy, but gay marriage is coming to your neighborhood. Get used to it or move to Iran or Uganda.
"We're here. We're queer. Get used to it" ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_slogans

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••