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.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6939 Sep 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I was asked, "What's wrong with same-sex marriage?" and I provided a list of reasons I support male/female marriage. Why can't you address any individual concern? I'd be happy to expand on my list.
Why do you want to protect male/female marriage? Let's work together to create a longer list!
I doubt he even read it before attacking it...

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#6940 Sep 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
I was asked, "What's wrong with same-sex marriage?" and I provided a list of reasons I support male/female marriage. Why can't you address any individual concern? I'd be happy to expand on my list.
You must know the meaning of inane. From Latin in&#257;nis empty. Senseless, unimaginative, or empty; unintelligent. Although your list does qualify as imaginative.

Not one of your reasons could ever stand up legally, or logically.
Brian_G wrote:
Why do you want to protect male/female marriage? Let's work together to create a longer list!
I don't want to protect male/female marriage as a special right. I want to see marriage equality for two adult, non-related, people. Male/female, male/male, and female/female.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6941 Sep 25, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
You must know the meaning of inane. From Latin in&#257;nis empty. Senseless, unimaginative, or empty; unintelligent. Although your list does qualify as imaginative.
Not one of your reasons could ever stand up legally, or logically.
<quoted text>
I don't want to protect male/female marriage as a special right. I want to see marriage equality for two adult, non-related, people. Male/female, male/male, and female/female.
on what basis do you LIMIT MARRIAGE TO TWO PEOPLE?
bigotry?

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#6942 Sep 25, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt he even read it before attacking it...
Oh I read the list. Did you?

Please provide a logical or legal reason why same-sex marriage should be denied and banned based upon any of the 26 items in Brian_G's list. The same challenge is open to you too, Brian_G.

Using #7 Intrusive new regulation, as starting point, what new regulations would have to be created to allow same-sex marriage that in doing so, should be any reason to deny those same-sex marriages?

Or #8 Higher taxes. What increase in taxes will occur if same-sex marriages were to become fully legal?

My answer to both questions? No new regulations will be need nor any change in taxes needed (or paid out) should same-sex marriage become fully legal.

And those are some of the least inane reasons, so I would really like you (or anyone) to explain why these make the list as reasons to ban same-sex marriage equality.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6943 Sep 25, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I read the list. Did you?
Please provide a logical or legal reason why same-sex marriage should be denied and banned based upon any of the 26 items in Brian_G's list. The same challenge is open to you too, Brian_G.
Using #7 Intrusive new regulation, as starting point, what new regulations would have to be created to allow same-sex marriage that in doing so, should be any reason to deny those same-sex marriages?
Or #8 Higher taxes. What increase in taxes will occur if same-sex marriages were to become fully legal?
My answer to both questions? No new regulations will be need nor any change in taxes needed (or paid out) should same-sex marriage become fully legal.
And those are some of the least inane reasons, so I would really like you (or anyone) to explain why these make the list as reasons to ban same-sex marriage equality.
should gays be given the presumption that a child born during the marriage is a child of both spouses?
even though it is clearly not the case?
what about the "sperm donor" for example?
WHOSE NAMES GO ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

what about our current laws denying marriage between close relatives....should that apply to gays?
why?

so should we exempt gays from a lot of marriage related laws?

now a question from you: ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, gay couple or straight couple for a child?

Don't change the question...ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#6944 Sep 25, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
on what basis do you LIMIT MARRIAGE TO TWO PEOPLE?
bigotry?
I do not advocate its ban, but I am not going to make an argument in favor of marriages of three or more.

But to use Brian's list, the new regulation issue would come into play for marriages greater than two. With only two, the other is presumed to be the 'next of kin' for the other and can automatically make many decisions when the other is incapacitated. Who gets that right when the one in a coma is married to more than one person? What if the multiple spouses don't agree on what should take place? Who inherits and how is it split?

For any of those questions, the same rules that currently applies to male/female marriage would also apply to male/male and female/female marriages. No new structure would need to be contemplated.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#6945 Sep 25, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not advocate its ban, but I am not going to make an argument in favor of marriages of three or more.
But to use Brian's list, the new regulation issue would come into play for marriages greater than two. With only two, the other is presumed to be the 'next of kin' for the other and can automatically make many decisions when the other is incapacitated. Who gets that right when the one in a coma is married to more than one person? What if the multiple spouses don't agree on what should take place? Who inherits and how is it split?
For any of those questions, the same rules that currently applies to male/female marriage would also apply to male/male and female/female marriages. No new structure would need to be contemplated.
except for the ones I just mentioned...
WHO GOES ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

And I would appreciate your answer of where you get the two person limit from, is it tradition or morality?
(please note that it is your side's argument that NEITHER tradition or morality is a proper ground...)

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#6946 Sep 25, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
Oh I read the list. Did you? Please provide a logical or legal reason why same-sex marriage should be denied and banned based upon any of the 26 items in Brian_G's list. The same challenge is open to you too, Brian_G.
Same sex marriage isn't banned, there's no law against your church providing a same sex marriage ceremony. If you travel to a jurisdiction that allows same sex marriage, you can't be arrested on your return. There's no law against asking friends and relatives to treat you and your partner as if you were married.

Polygamy is banned under federal law, same sex marriage isn't.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
Using #7 Intrusive new regulation, as starting point, what new regulations would have to be created to allow same-sex marriage that in doing so, should be any reason to deny those same-sex marriages?
Same sex marriage creates new marriage, custody, support, adoption and entitlement law. These laws force government to treat people as if they were unisex. It's already stopped Catholic Charities in Boston from preferring orphans be placed with a mother and father.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
Or #8 Higher taxes. What increase in taxes will occur if same-sex marriages were to become fully legal?
If the demand for marriage benefits increases, then either the benefit pie is cut smaller or married people will demand a tax increase so they get the same benefits they had before same sex marriage; I'm betting on the latter.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
My answer to both questions? No new regulations will be need nor any change in taxes needed (or paid out) should same-sex marriage become fully legal.
D.i.M. is unable to see the consequences of his radical new social change.

.
DaveinMass wrote:
And those are some of the least inane reasons, so I would really like you (or anyone) to explain why these make the list as reasons to ban same-sex marriage equality.
Again, there is no ban. Government just continues to view marriage as male/female, like mom and dad.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#6947 Sep 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/eur...
France set to ban the words 'mother' and 'father' from official documents
That might concern me the next time I fill out an official French document.
Brian_G wrote:
France is set to ban the words "mother" and "father" from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.
The head of the French Catholic Church Cardinal Philippe Barbarin warned followers last week that gay marriage could lead to legalised incest and polygamy in society.
He told the Christian's RFC radio station: "Gay marriage would herald a complete breakdown in society.
Stupid superstitious people like you are easily frightened.
There is no possible mechanism by which gay marriage could lead to a complete breakdown in society.
You idiots remind me of this video:
http://youtu.be/rixkck8QnjY
Meteor coming!
Gays fault?
Brian_G wrote:
"This could have innumerable consequences. Afterward they will want to create couples with three or four members. And after that, perhaps one day the taboo of incest will fall."
Leading French Catholics have also published a 'Prayer for France', which says: "Children should not be subjected to adults'
Rose's Law:
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
Brian_G wrote:
desires and conflicts, so they can fully benefit from the love of their mother and father."
And Pope Benedict XVI invited 30 French bishops to Italy to urge them to fight against the new law.
He told them: "We have there a true challenge to take on.
"The family that is the foundation of social life is threatened in many places, following a concept of human nature that has proven defective."...
Spare me.
Gay marriage doesn't threaten anybody's family.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#6948 Sep 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Correction to the above:
...
.
<quoted text>Wrong: The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (37th United States Congress, Sess. 2., ch. 126, 12 Stat. 501) was a federal enactment of the United States Congress that was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. Sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, the act banned bigamy and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Anti-Big ...
There is no such law for same sex marriage.
.
<quoted text>Vice President Biden voted to enact DOMA into law when he was in the Senate. He's running in November; are you going to vote for him and his running mate, Obama?
.
<quoted text>There's no law stopping "two unrelated adults making a lifetime commitment" anywhere in the USA. We just want to stop the left from writing new law to redefine marriage for everyone.
Your marriage would be redefined if gay marriage is allowed?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#6949 Sep 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Here's my top 20 list:
1 Posterity
2 Vive le difference!
3 Survival.
4 Civil discourse.
4 Antidemocratic.
5 Taboo.
6 Entitlement spending
7 Intrusive new regulation
8 Higher taxes
9 Fallacy of Composition
10 Married women suffer less violence
11 Ex post facto law for married gays
12 Honor your mother and father
13 Kant's Catagorical Imperitive, what if everyone did
14 Diversity and integration vs SSM is segregation
15 Backlash
16 Scapegoating
17 Consequences
18 Boycotts
19 Bullying
20 Novelty
21 KISS
22 Marriage is also a sacred union. Godís in the mix.- B. Obama
23 Faith - J. Biden
24 Hypocrites
25 No couple's rights in the Constitution
26 Spirit, soul, religion.
And yet, not one good argument against gay marriage.
1.?
2. Stupid, like you.
3. Gay marriage won't kill anybody, you idiot.
4. There is nothing civil about denying people basic human rights.
4. Learnt to count, moron.
5. Not a good reason to deny people equal rights
6. Random catch phrase
7. Random catch phrase
8. Lie
9. Nonsense
10. Stupid, if gay marriage is allowed, more women would marry.
11. Random catch phrase
12. Random catch phrase
13. That's stupid. Is it morally wrong to name someone Brian?
14. Random catch phrase
15. Random catch phrase
16. Random catch phrase
17. Like what, stupid?
18.?
19. There is bullying now, you idiot.
20.?
21. Didn't they break up during the early 80's?
22. God doesn't exist.
23. Keep your Faith to yourself.
24. Yep, you fundies are.
25. Equal rights for all citizens.
26. Keep them to yourself.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#6950 Sep 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I was asked, "What's wrong with same-sex marriage?" and I provided a list of reasons I support male/female marriage. Why can't you address any individual concern? I'd be happy to expand on my list.
Why do you want to protect male/female marriage? Let's work together to create a longer list!
Gay marriage won't harm male/female marriage.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#6951 Sep 25, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
on what basis do you LIMIT MARRIAGE TO TWO PEOPLE?
bigotry?
Why do you try to change the subject?
Because there's not good argument against gay marriage?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#6952 Sep 25, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
should gays be given the presumption that a child born during the marriage is a child of both spouses?
even though it is clearly not the case?
what about the "sperm donor" for example?
WHOSE NAMES GO ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
Why do you think using the caps lock key makes up for your lack of ability to form a rational argument?
Jane Dough wrote:
what about our current laws denying marriage between close relatives....should that apply to gays?
why?
so should we exempt gays from a lot of marriage related laws?
now a question from you: ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, gay couple or straight couple for a child?
Rose's Law...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#6953 Sep 25, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
except for the ones I just mentioned...
WHO GOES ON THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
LOL. Why do you think that's an issue? Who goes on the birth certificate now?
Jane Dough wrote:
And I would appreciate your answer of where you get the two person limit from, is it tradition or morality?
(please note that it is your side's argument that NEITHER tradition or morality is a proper ground...)
If you have a good argument against gay marriage, make it. Quit trying to change the subject.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#6954 Sep 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Here's my top 20 list:
1 Posterity
2 Vive le difference!
3 Survival.
4 Civil discourse.
4 Antidemocratic.
5 Taboo.
6 Entitlement spending
7 Intrusive new regulation
8 Higher taxes
9 Fallacy of Composition
10 Married women suffer less violence
11 Ex post facto law for married gays
12 Honor your mother and father
13 Kant's Catagorical Imperitive, what if everyone did
14 Diversity and integration vs SSM is segregation
15 Backlash
16 Scapegoating
17 Consequences
18 Boycotts
19 Bullying
20 Novelty
21 KISS
22 Marriage is also a sacred union. Godís in the mix.- B. Obama
23 Faith - J. Biden
24 Hypocrites
25 No couple's rights in the Constitution
26 Spirit, soul, religion.
You forgot a few:

27. Green Jello
28. Cheese and rice
29. Toast on a Stick
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#6955 Sep 25, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Your marriage would be redefined if gay marriage is allowed?
Brian is divorced.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#6956 Sep 25, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>Brian is divorced.
Isn't it odd that so many of the "save marriage" folks are divorced?
Like Rush Limpaguh...

“laugh until your belly hurts”

Since: Dec 06

Location hidden

#6957 Sep 25, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>Brian is divorced.
i can't imagine why.*lol*

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#6958 Sep 25, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What same sex marriage law? In half the cases, courts impose same sex marriage law on the entire state. Same sex marriage law applies to two closely related men or two closely related women; brother/brother and sister/sister marriage is banned just like brother/sister marriage.
No dear, courts have NOT imposed SSM on anyone. In every State that has it, the Legislature passed the law. Whenever a court has "ordered" a change, it was still left to the legislature and in most cases the anti-gay industry went to court to block passage of those laws.

To answer your first question: DOMA

As for the rest I'm confused. Why are you upset that laws applying to "incestuous" marriages would apply to both gay and straight couples?

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 min cpeter1313 8,439
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,581,927
News Report: Higher premiums if Trump halts 'Obamaca... 8 min Dee Dee Dee 57
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 12 min positronium 26,373
News Is healthcare a Jewish value? NEW 15 min The Bible Student 50
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 22 min NTMD8OR 287,579
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 36 min positronium 8,651
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 45 min Covfefe 1,437
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr Truth is might 222,247
More from around the web