Five myths about gay marriage

May 14, 2012 Full story: www.washingtonpost.com 776

1. Letting gay couples get married redefines marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that, with few exceptions, marriage has always been about uniting the two sexes and linking mother and father to children. Change that, and marriage ceases to be marriage. True premise, false conclusion. Marriage multitasks.

2. Same-sex marriage hurts children. Opponents are right when they say that, other things being equal, children do best when raised by their married biological parents. But, again: true premise, false conclusion. The great enemy of the traditional family in the United States today is not the desire of gay couples to get married; it is the failure of heterosexual couples to get married and stay married.

3. A collision with religious liberty is unavoidable. Must religious-affiliated institutions choose between their principles and their nonprofit tax status? It’s a real problem. The myth is that it’s an unmanageable one. We know this because we have already dealt with it, in the context of abortion. Congress and the states have provided religious-liberty exemptions that let Catholic hospitals, for example, avoid performing the procedure. Many of the same kinds of exemptions can and should be offered in the context of same-sex marriage.

4. The entire country must have the same policy. We can’t have different marriage standards in different states; that’s chaos. Right? Wrong. States have always defined marriage differently. Rules vary on whether you can marry a blood relative, age of consent, divorce and so on. Although states recognize one another’s marriages as a matter of convenience, neither the Constitution nor federal law requires them to do so.

5. The battle is almost over. Possibly, but remember: Most states ban same-sex marriage, many by constitutional decree. Absent a Supreme Court decision, those bans will take years to change. Even if the Supreme Court were to intervene, its ruling — especially on a 5 to 4 vote, which is the best gay-marriage supporters could get from the current court — would not necessarily end the argument. Indeed, as with the court’s 1973 decision declaring a constitutional right to abortion, it might escalate the argument. This is a fight about the meaning of marriage, not just about gay civil rights.

Full Story

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#839 May 27, 2012
Pagan and Proud wrote:
That's funny, that's not what your Religious Tolerance Source says, "Landowners in the American colonies originally met their need for forced labor by enslaving a limited number of Natives, and "hiring" many more European indentured servants. In exchange for their transportation across the Atlantic, the servants committed to work for the landowner for 4 to 7 years. A few slaves were imported from Africa as early as 1619. With the spread of tobacco farming in the 1670's, and the diminishing number of people willing to sign-on as indentured servants in the 1680's, increasing numbers of slaves were brought in from Africa. They replaced Native American slaves, who were found to be susceptible to diseases of European origin. "...small numbers of white people were also enslaved by kidnapping, or for crimes or debts." 2 The Africans "came from many racial stocks and many tribes, from the spirited Hausas, the gentle Mandingos, the creative Yorubas, from the Igbos, Efiks and Krus, from the proud Fantins, the warlike Ashantis, the shrewd Dahomeans, the Binis and Sengalese."<quoted text>That's not what your own source says.<quoted text>Your problem is you haven't bothered to READ and you still try to maintain that whitewashed gradeschool history was true instead of being a nice Propaganda piece told to the kids.
Maybe you should try READING the crap you post dimwit.
You did hear that correct? "Limited number of natives." I haven't included American Indians in the slavery issue because there was so few to be involved.
That said, it was the indentured servitude of whites owning whites that took off big time and they all came from England. A small number of Africans were bought and originally were also indentured servants. But as the laws for indentured servants was being phased out and the plantation owners in the south were increasing, they began to accept Africans as slaves that were taken from Africa for plantation owners needs.
So when you state that slavery existed before England came to America, yeah it did. In the Caribbeans and Island areas and some in Central America to Mexico. The Spanish imported Africans to these areas besides using the indigenous people.
But when England came to this country, it didn't bring slavery. It established colonies and many failed. Then the Puritans that left England for Holland and there for the Americas, they began the first real long term colonies around 1620.
From the earliest part of the 1600s to the 1660s indentured servitude was the preferred manner of slavery and those servants largely came from England.
You're ignorant statement was that slavery existed from the moment the English landed on the North American continent and that is not true and you didn't know that. So now you continue to try and cover up your obvious lack of historical knowledge by still pretending to know what you have no clue about.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#841 May 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
You're ignorant statement was that slavery existed from the moment the English landed on the North American continent and that is not true and you didn't know that. So now you continue to try and cover up your obvious lack of historical knowledge by still pretending to know what you have no clue about.
And you're a Liar. It DID exist, it HAD existed far longer than the Colonies, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe you should educate yourself in the History of Slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#842 May 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
How far will you back peddle this issue to continue to prove your idiocy? lol...you really need to just quit.
This was your statement of America and slavery as you left it undefined...
"Slavery existed and was around long before this country was founded and "indentured servitude" was just another limited form of slavery."
To that statement I responded that you were actually saying...
"...that you stated slavery was alive and well at the moment of America being colonized by the English with African slaves from Africa in tow."
And now you want to switch hit and and say that isn't what you meant? Then if I'm incorrect that you were including African slaves, then according to your new statement of your old one we never had African slaves in America according to your statement since you say you didn't say that.
You're as looney as you write lol.
And you are Incompetent.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#843 May 28, 2012
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>And you're a Liar. It DID exist, it HAD existed far longer than the Colonies, it's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.
Maybe you should educate yourself in the History of Slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
lolol...slavery didn't exist with the first English colonists that came here. They didn't bring slavery with them from England.
I suggest you do some US history research of "who" were the first English colonists and when they first arrived. I would suggest you read a bit of how long a time period existed between the first English settlement to the first boat load of actual indentured servants began to arrive.
I'll give you a clue here. The first English people that first settled this country, they didn't bring slaves with them. Why? because there was no need for a slave. England was sending boat loads of people to use to begin settlements. Many first settlements didn't make it because the natives wiped them out of existence. If you had paid attention to US History in school you'd know that fact. You would also know that later settlements took off because the English learned their existence depended on getting along with the natives instead of fighting them. Remember the story of Pocahontas? That first interracial marriage happened to solidify the English in good favor with the natives and it worked. But no slaves existed even then as you erroneously claim.
The English had been attempting settlements for more then 40 years before slavery(indentured servitude)became a needed item. And the only reason it happened was because wealthy English men were told if they bought land in America and populated it, their acreage would increase.
So again, the English didn't bring slavery with them America when it was first settled.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#844 May 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lolol...slavery didn't exist with the first English colonists that came here. They didn't bring slavery with them from England.
I suggest you do some US history research of "who" were the first English colonists and when they first arrived. I would suggest you read a bit of how long a time period existed between the first English settlement to the first boat load of actual indentured servants began to arrive.
I'll give you a clue here. The first English people that first settled this country, they didn't bring slaves with them. Why? because there was no need for a slave. England was sending boat loads of people to use to begin settlements. Many first settlements didn't make it because the natives wiped them out of existence. If you had paid attention to US History in school you'd know that fact. You would also know that later settlements took off because the English learned their existence depended on getting along with the natives instead of fighting them. Remember the story of Pocahontas? That first interracial marriage happened to solidify the English in good favor with the natives and it worked. But no slaves existed even then as you erroneously claim.
The English had been attempting settlements for more then 40 years before slavery(indentured servitude)became a needed item. And the only reason it happened was because wealthy English men were told if they bought land in America and populated it, their acreage would increase.
So again, the English didn't bring slavery with them America when it was first settled.
And if you'd bother reading a bit Farther than Grammar School you'd know better.

The first African slaves arrived in the present-day United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526. The ill-fated colony was disrupted by a fight over leadership, during which the slaves revolted and fled the colony to seek refuge among local Native Americans. De Ayllón and many of the colonists died shortly afterward of an epidemic. The Spanish abandoned the colony, leaving the escaped slaves behind. In 1565, the Spanish colony of San Agustín in Florida became the first permanent European settlement on modern U.S. territory, and included an unknown number of African slaves.

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

While Wikipedia isn't known to be as accurate as most Colleges prefer, it's more than adequate to shut down an idiot like you.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#846 May 28, 2012
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>And if you'd bother reading a bit Farther than Grammar School you'd know better.
The first African slaves arrived in the present-day United States as part of the San Miguel de Gualdape colony (most likely located in the Winyah Bay area of present-day South Carolina), founded by Spanish explorer Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón in 1526. The ill-fated colony was disrupted by a fight over leadership, during which the slaves revolted and fled the colony to seek refuge among local Native Americans. De Ayllón and many of the colonists died shortly afterward of an epidemic. The Spanish abandoned the colony, leaving the escaped slaves behind. In 1565, the Spanish colony of San Agustín in Florida became the first permanent European settlement on modern U.S. territory, and included an unknown number of African slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_U...
While Wikipedia isn't known to be as accurate as most Colleges prefer, it's more than adequate to shut down an idiot like you.
You're speaking in stupid mode again. Why don't you just quit? You have proved you know little if anything of slavery and American history.
See, I have never spoke of slaves brought to the new world by the Spanish to work their plantations. Why haven't I? Because I wasn't speaking about the Spanish colonizing and using slaves of South and Central America and Mexico etc, and some few parts of North America.
I was speaking of the colonizing of North America by the English. You know, the white people from England? The white English people who didn't use slavery for the first 40+ years of setting in the New World? You know, the white English people who first made more indentured slaves of other white English people then any other ethnic group? Did you forget that was the topic? Not the Spanish?

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#847 May 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're speaking in stupid mode again. Why don't you just quit? You have proved you know little if anything of slavery and American history.
See, I have never spoke of slaves brought to the new world by the Spanish to work their plantations. Why haven't I? Because I wasn't speaking about the Spanish colonizing and using slaves of South and Central America and Mexico etc, and some few parts of North America.
I was speaking of the colonizing of North America by the English. You know, the white people from England? The white English people who didn't use slavery for the first 40+ years of setting in the New World? You know, the white English people who first made more indentured slaves of other white English people then any other ethnic group? Did you forget that was the topic? Not the Spanish?
And now you try to DODGE. You're the one that needs to just give it up. First you mention that they had very few Native American Slaves, but they don't count, and then there were none, and then they are "indentured Slaves" and then there aren't.... you can't keep your sh!t straight. Just give it up, you've LOST.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#849 May 28, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lolol...slavery didn't exist with the first English colonists that came here. They didn't bring slavery with them from England.
I suggest you do some US history research of "who" were the first English colonists and when they first arrived. I would suggest you read a bit of how long a time period existed between the first English settlement to the first boat load of actual indentured servants began to arrive.
I'll give you a clue here. The first English people that first settled this country, they didn't bring slaves with them. Why? because there was no need for a slave. England was sending boat loads of people to use to begin settlements. Many first settlements didn't make it because the natives wiped them out of existence. If you had paid attention to US History in school you'd know that fact. You would also know that later settlements took off because the English learned their existence depended on getting along with the natives instead of fighting them. Remember the story of Pocahontas? That first interracial marriage happened to solidify the English in good favor with the natives and it worked. But no slaves existed even then as you erroneously claim.
The English had been attempting settlements for more then 40 years before slavery(indentured servitude)became a needed item. And the only reason it happened was because wealthy English men were told if they bought land in America and populated it, their acreage would increase.
So again, the English didn't bring slavery with them America when it was first settled.
It already existed among the Spaniards, and among many of the Natives before them.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#850 May 28, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
It already existed among the Spaniards, and among many of the Natives before them.
I was never speaking of slavery and the Spanish. I was speaking of when the English began using slaves and how. The other poster deflected the conversation to include past, present and future forms of slavery.
The slavery of African peoples has been noted in ancient writings /pictographs for thousands of years. But of our recent time, that slavery of Africans had been done by Arabs for centuries. Then the Spanish got into the act and took them across the ocean to their plantations. then the English began using some but not a lot as is recorded. But after the English had settled America they began to use Africans regularly as slaves when laws allowing whites to own white indentured servants were largely abolished as inhumane. So they did the inhumane thing and accepted more and more Africans as slaves with no freedoms, privileges, etc to work more and more plantations in the southern states.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#851 May 28, 2012
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>And now you try to DODGE. You're the one that needs to just give it up. First you mention that they had very few Native American Slaves, but they don't count, and then there were none, and then they are "indentured Slaves" and then there aren't.... you can't keep your sh!t straight. Just give it up, you've LOST.
You argued yourself into your own errors plain and simple.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#852 May 29, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You argued yourself into your own errors plain and simple.
No, you simply lie deny and run when faced with FACTS.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#853 May 29, 2012
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>No, you simply lie deny and run when faced with FACTS.
That comes as no surprise.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#855 May 29, 2012
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>No, you simply lie deny and run when faced with FACTS.
Your ignorance has no boundary lines. I educated you on American slavery as you had to paste anything you responded to because you personally had no knowledge of American slavery.
You didn't know jack *hit about indentured slavery. You're the butt wipe that thought African slavery began with the first colonies and stated there was nothing about indentured slavery. Your the one that ignorantly stated there were more black slaves then white slaves at the beginning of the first colonies and I had to inform you that slavery didn't even exist for about the first 50 years.
Now you back peddle and say this and that to cover up the fact you didn't know jack *hit about American slavery and it's beginnings with the English colonies.
Your knowledge of this is pathetic and ignorant and stupid and you don't know when to quit...lolol.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#856 May 29, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance has no boundary lines. I educated you on American slavery as you had to paste anything you responded to because you personally had no knowledge of American slavery.
No, you didn't. I had plenty of knowledge on the subject, you simply try to lie and change the subjects parameters when you're shown to be WRONG, Just like every other know-nothing troll.
No Surprise wrote:
You didn't know jack *hit about indentured slavery. You're the butt wipe that thought African slavery began with the first colonies and stated there was nothing about indentured slavery. Your the one that ignorantly stated there were more black slaves then white slaves at the beginning of the first colonies and I had to inform you that slavery didn't even exist for about the first 50 years.
ROFLMAO! And you were the one trying to claim INDENTURED SERVITUDE wasn't slavery, I said nothing about the race ratio other than the FACT that there WERE Black Slaves here when you claimed there were not, and then I posted the Link to prove you WRONG
No Surprise wrote:
Now you back peddle and say this and that to cover up the fact you didn't know jack *hit about American slavery and it's beginnings with the English colonies.
Your knowledge of this is pathetic and ignorant and stupid and you don't know when to quit...lolol.
Your Idiocy is apparent, and watching you attempt to change your claims is typical of any Troll. The Dumbass that doesn't know when to quit, even after he's had his ass kicked several times would be you.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#857 May 29, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I was never speaking of slavery and the Spanish. I was speaking of when the English began using slaves and how. The other poster deflected the conversation to include past, present and future forms of slavery.
The slavery of African peoples has been noted in ancient writings /pictographs for thousands of years. But of our recent time, that slavery of Africans had been done by Arabs for centuries. Then the Spanish got into the act and took them across the ocean to their plantations. then the English began using some but not a lot as is recorded. But after the English had settled America they began to use Africans regularly as slaves when laws allowing whites to own white indentured servants were largely abolished as inhumane. So they did the inhumane thing and accepted more and more Africans as slaves with no freedoms, privileges, etc to work more and more plantations in the southern states.
True. The Puritans certainly DID make big business out of it.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#859 May 29, 2012
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>No, you didn't. I had plenty of knowledge on the subject, you simply try to lie and change the subjects parameters when you're shown to be WRONG, Just like every other know-nothing troll. <quoted text>ROFLMAO! And you were the one trying to claim INDENTURED SERVITUDE wasn't slavery, I said nothing about the race ratio other than the FACT that there WERE Black Slaves here when you claimed there were not, and then I posted the Link to prove you WRONG<quoted text>Your Idiocy is apparent, and watching you attempt to change your claims is typical of any Troll. The Dumbass that doesn't know when to quit, even after he's had his ass kicked several times would be you.
You're not stupid, you're pathetically mentally challenged stupid. And that explains your erratic thinking.
You took my initial post out of context to have something stupid to say. You have validated that stupidity ever sense. Not much more to explain of your pathetic thinking as many others recognize it.
You're stating indentured servitude is to slavery as slavery is to having with no rights and freedoms with the option of being beaten and whipped and or killed, is like you calling a first responder that's a police officer is the same as the first responder that's a fireman. To you and your mentally challenged mind you claim to see no difference. And I can accept that you are this way. So you have a nice day now :)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#860 May 29, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not stupid, you're pathetically mentally challenged stupid. And that explains your erratic thinking.
You took my initial post out of context to have something stupid to say. You have validated that stupidity ever sense. Not much more to explain of your pathetic thinking as many others recognize it.
You're stating indentured servitude is to slavery as slavery is to having with no rights and freedoms with the option of being beaten and whipped and or killed, is like you calling a first responder that's a police officer is the same as the first responder that's a fireman. To you and your mentally challenged mind you claim to see no difference. And I can accept that you are this way. So you have a nice day now :)
The responders may be different in their functions and the helpfulness that they offer, but the will to help remains the same.

The victim remains the victim.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#861 May 29, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're not stupid, you're pathetically mentally challenged stupid. And that explains your erratic thinking.
You took my initial post out of context to have something stupid to say. You have validated that stupidity ever sense. Not much more to explain of your pathetic thinking as many others recognize it.
You're stating indentured servitude is to slavery as slavery is to having with no rights and freedoms with the option of being beaten and whipped and or killed, is like you calling a first responder that's a police officer is the same as the first responder that's a fireman. To you and your mentally challenged mind you claim to see no difference. And I can accept that you are this way. So you have a nice day now :)
No, you're just a lying POS. That's all there is to it. YOU were the one that later started calling Indentured Servitude Indentured Slavery. The fact that only 40% of Indentured Servants actually SURVIVED the experience, their "services" could be inherited or Bought and Sold as property shows that the only real difference in the two is the fact that the "indentured Servant" had a supposed "Release date" that could easily be changed as a form of Punishment.
GFY.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#862 May 29, 2012
Pagan and Proud wrote:
<quoted text>No, you're just a lying POS. That's all there is to it. YOU were the one that later started calling Indentured Servitude Indentured Slavery. The fact that only 40% of Indentured Servants actually SURVIVED the experience, their "services" could be inherited or Bought and Sold as property shows that the only real difference in the two is the fact that the "indentured Servant" had a supposed "Release date" that could easily be changed as a form of Punishment.
GFY.
lolol...yeah whatever. I never called indentured servitude indentured slavery so your a liar. And if you can find a single paste from a single post of mine where I called indentured servitude indentured slavery, I was incorrect to call it that and admit it. Indentured servitude is not indentured slavery. Slavery is generally defined as a person that has been "taken" and used for slavery and usually against their will. There might be a few whackos in past history that actually asked for another person to use them and own them as a slave, and to beat them and misuse them as they so wished of them I agree it could have happened.
But indentured servitude was usually where a person "voluntarily" agreed to be someone else's servant for a period of time while retaining certain freedoms like the right to marriage and relationships and to go to town and buy and sell things of their own owning. None of those rights came with slavery. In slavery what little you were given could be taken away from you as punishment. Slaves had no legal rights. Indentured servants did have legal rights and certain freedoms as afforded any individual.

“I will not go quietly.”

Since: Feb 07

Indianapolis Indiana

#864 May 29, 2012
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lolol...yeah whatever. I never called indentured servitude indentured slavery so your a liar. And if you can find a single paste from a single post of mine where I called indentured servitude indentured slavery, I was incorrect to call it that and admit it. Indentured servitude is not indentured slavery. Slavery is generally defined as a person that has been "taken" and used for slavery and usually against their will. There might be a few whackos in past history that actually asked for another person to use them and own them as a slave, and to beat them and misuse them as they so wished of them I agree it could have happened.
But indentured servitude was usually where a person "voluntarily" agreed to be someone else's servant for a period of time while retaining certain freedoms like the right to marriage and relationships and to go to town and buy and sell things of their own owning. None of those rights came with slavery. In slavery what little you were given could be taken away from you as punishment. Slaves had no legal rights. Indentured servants did have legal rights and certain freedoms as afforded any individual.
http://www.topix.com/forum/new s/gay/TVSG00PEHBB7A4TEO/post85 5
There ya go, LIAR.
And then you try and backpedal, cover it up, and admit that you DID use those words....
You really are a sick and twisted POS.

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
Is Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 3 min nhjeff 163
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min Reverend Alan 15,687
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 7 min reality 57,924
Gay community celebrating judge's lift on same ... 7 min Logic Lesson for ... 5
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 9 min Big D 201,390
Pediatrician Won't Treat Baby With Lesbian Moms 12 min Not Yet Equal 243
More gay people can now get legally married. Th... 13 min amal2015 37
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 13 min Frankie Rizzo 3,233
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 35 min Frankie Rizzo 1,117
More from around the web