Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

[Jane Dough]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here ya go:
http://www.scotusblog.com/category/special-fe...

that would be where i got mine...
one in particular you think is good?
thats what i was doing by sharing that material...

[Brian_G]

DaveinMass wrote:

But there is a difference between things that are legally equal verses mathematically/scientifically equal.

Something is either equal or different. Some laws are bad, when they don't reflect reality. I want laws that are consistent with math and science; this is where we differ.

.

DaveinMass wrote:

Male and female can be legally equal yet not be considered equal in any of the sciences.

There is no gender equality right in the Constitution. The ERA failed because the states didn't want same sex marriage and gender equality.

Canada has gender equality guaranteed by their constitution, and they have same sex marriage. So does Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden; the USA doesn't have gender equality.

.

DaveinMass wrote:

Since we are talking about the legal definition of marriage your argument is found lacking in merit.

Other posters have given excellent examples of how man and woman aren't legally equal. Gender equality has no legal merit.

.

DaveinMass wrote:

No one has ever claimed that the different genders are biologically equal.

Yes they have, you must have missed Rose writing this, she's written similar posts before before: "I do want the government to treat people as if they have no gender." I believe gender differences are great and important to the survival of the human species; this is where we differ.

.

DaveinMass wrote:

We only claim that they are legally equal.

And your claim is false, men and women are legally different.

[WasteWater]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Something is either equal or different. Some laws are bad, when they don't reflect reality. I want laws that are consistent with math and science; this is where we differ.
.
<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the Constitution. The ERA failed because the states didn't want same sex marriage and gender equality.
Canada has gender equality guaranteed by their constitution, and they have same sex marriage. So does Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden; the USA doesn't have gender equality.
.
<quoted text>Other posters have given excellent examples of how man and woman aren't legally equal. Gender equality has no legal merit.
.
<quoted text>Yes they have, you must have missed Rose writing this, she's written similar posts before before: "I do want the government to treat people as if they have no gender." I believe gender differences are great and important to the survival of the human species; this is where we differ.
.
<quoted text>And your claim is false, men and women are legally different.

Men and women citizens have equal voting rights and citizenship rights. Therefore they are legal equals and equivalent.

NEXT

[Brian_G]

DNF wrote:

Yes. A child who turns out to be like you.

I make my arguments without insults; this is where we differ.

.

DNF wrote:

That is one of the most defamatory statements you've ever written.

Please explain why you find this defamatory: "Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless. Is there anything sadder than a motherless child?" To be defamatory, a statement must be false, do you disagree with my opinion about a motherless child? How does that statement harm anyone? I understand it harms DNF's political argument, but that's not defamation.

.

DNF wrote:

Divorce does the same thing you're whining about yet I don't see you getting people to sign any pledges to ban divorce.

I believe in the right to divorce and I've written divorce helps maintain consent in marriage. Divorce does't deprive a child of a mother or father, it deprives the child of a home shared with both a mother and father. Divorce is nothing like same sex marriage, DNF's argument is spurious.

.

DNF wrote:

Diseases that lead to death do that as well. Where are your laws to make life miserable for the widows and widowers raising their children?

Changing the law to allow same sex marriage implies consent; widows and widowers don't intend to become single parents.

.

DNF wrote:

And what do we do with the children who have children?

I'm sure DNF will tell us, and I don't think I'll like his hate filled plans. I've never written a single word against homosexuals; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Gays have a right to freedom of associations, I've never advocated depriving anyone of the right to their consensual relationships.

.

DNF wrote:

Put them in prison because they denied a child of a father or mother by not marrying the low life that got them pregnant?

^^^Another hate filled idea from DNF.

.

DNF wrote:

Oh and lets' not forget the girls either. What sort of laws should we pass to make life miserable for all the girls who refuse to protect themselves from pre-marital pregnancy?

These are the arguments you get when people give up reason in favor of emotion. This is why I want to protect the sound social policy of keeping marriage one man and one woman. When you make macro policy out of sympathy for a friend or relative, you can be certain of bad consequences.

[Brian_G]

DNF wrote:

Well for one thing it's a bald faced lie.

More likely, DNF misunderstood.

.

DNF wrote:

How can making existing law apply equally to gays and straights deny a black family a mother or father?

Existing laws does apply equally to straights and gays; there is no orientation test for a marriage license. DNF doesn't like existing law and equal rights for homosexuals to marry under the same rules as everyone else, he wants special laws that make government treat gender as if it's insignificant.

If government treats people as though they are unisex, that means government sees a black father or husband as insignificant to a black family. It doesn't 'deny a black family' anything other than the significance of a mother or wife to the black family, and everyone else's family too.

If you value your mother and father; keep marriage male/female.

[Brian_G]

WasteWater wrote:

Men and women citizens have equal voting rights and citizenship rights.

Women were given the vote by the 19th Amendment in 1920, men always had the right to vote.

What do you mean, "citizenship rights"? Can you cite an Amendment or clause in the Constitution?

.

WasteWater wrote:

Therefore they are legal equals and equivalent.
NEXT

The 19th Amendment is explicitly limited to the right to vote, it doesn't create gender equality. There is no gender equivalence in the Constitution, just as there is no right to gender equality.

[Brian_G]

Comparing same sex marriage to civil rights MAKES ME SICK!

[Rose_NoHo]

WaterBoarder wrote:

<quoted text>
"Rose's Law"? Sorry but Rose's OPINION means nothing to me. In case you missed it the first time:
"Gay marriage would further open the door for you people to teach your particular views on sexuality to other people's children."

Like I said, Rose's Law!
You are a moron with no real argument, so you start going on about children.
People are going to start teaching rational views of human sexuality in schools, regardless of the legal status of gay marriage.

WaterBoarder wrote:

http://www.healthiersf.org/LGBTQ/InTheClassro...
You homofascists will stop at nothing to impose your perversion on others. There was a time I would support many gay rights as a matter of fairness and principle. No more.

Sure. I like the way you fundies try to make your bigotry seem righteous.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

Comparing same sex marriage to civil rights MAKES ME SICK!

The civil rights movement of the 60's and the current fight for gay marriage is one and the same. The fight for equal rights.

All US citizens should get equal protection under the law. Our rights shouldn't be determined by our skin color nor hair texture, and they shouldn't be determined by our sexual orientation nor genitals.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Women were given the vote by the 19th Amendment in 1920, men always had the right to vote.
What do you mean, "citizenship rights"? Can you cite an Amendment or clause in the Constitution?
.
<quoted text>The 19th Amendment is explicitly limited to the right to vote, it doesn't create gender equality. There is no gender equivalence in the Constitution, just as there is no right to gender equality.

Yes, there is, 14th Amendment.
All US citizens should get equal protection under the law.

[Rose_NoHo]

WaterBoarder wrote:

<quoted text>
The rights of Christian parents to send their kids to Christian counselors.

They shouldn't have the right to abuse their children by sending them to "counselors" who practice the psychiatric equivalent of bloodletting.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Something is either equal or different. Some laws are bad, when they don't reflect reality. I want laws that are consistent with math and science; this is where we differ.

You are an irrational idiot, that's where we differ.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>There is no gender equality right in the Constitution.

14th Amendment. Both men and women are US citizens.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Yes they have, you must have missed Rose writing this, she's written similar posts before before: "I do want the government to treat people as if they have no gender." I believe gender differences are great and important to the survival of the human species; this is where we differ.

When are you going to name one of these differences?
(Apart from simple physical ones.)

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>And your claim is false, men and women are legally different.

Black and white people were at one time, too.

[Rose_NoHo]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I make my arguments without insults; this is where we differ.
.

That's a lie. Every time you say people don't deserve basic, equal human rights you are insulting them, no matter how nice the words you use to do that are.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Please explain why you find this defamatory: "Every child raised by a same sex couple is raised either motherless or fatherless. Is there anything sadder than a motherless child?"To be defamatory, a statement must be false, do you disagree with my opinion about a motherless child?

Yes. A child raised by you would be sadder. It would be better off shot in the stomach and left to bleed to death.


.
<

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Changing the law to allow same sex marriage implies consent; widows and widowers don't intend to become single parents.

WTF? You are stupid. I don't mean that as an insult. It's just a fact. Your "argument" makes no sense.
.

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>I'm sure DNF will tell us, and I don't think I'll like his hate filled plans. I've never written a single word against homosexuals;

Another lie.

Brian_G wrote:

I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. Gays have a right to freedom of associations, I've never advocated depriving anyone of the right to their consensual relationships.

.[QUOTE who="Brian_G"]
<quoted text>These are the arguments you get when people give up reason in favor of emotion.

I don't use emotion in my argument at all, it's a simple matter of equal rights. Your "arguments" are pure emotion. Like "s there anything sadder than a motherless child?". You are just trying to stir up emotion, and the question has nothing to do with the issue of gay marriage at all.

Brian_G wrote:

This is why I want to protect the sound social policy of keeping marriage one man and one woman.When you make macro policy out of sympathy for a friend or relative, you can be certain of bad consequences.

That is saying there is something wrong with gay people. That is insulting gay people. That is hateful towards gay people.

[RnL2008]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
that would be where i got mine...
one in particular you think is good?
thats what i was doing by sharing that material...

I knew where you got the article from.......the fact that you stated you didn't see the others was why I posted the link!!!!

Yes, but you'd tell me that I was just pandering to articles that make my point.......so, I'll just leave it at that!!!!

[WasteWater]

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>Women were given the vote by the 19th Amendment in 1920, men always had the right to vote.
What do you mean, "citizenship rights"? Can you cite an Amendment or clause in the Constitution?
.
<quoted text>The 19th Amendment is explicitly limited to the right to vote, it doesn't create gender equality. There is no gender equivalence in the Constitution, just as there is no right to gender equality.

They are equal now, that's all that matters. The Constitution is a living document which gets interpreted differently over time. The year is 2012 to the best of my knowledge. Citizenship rights are guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

[RnL2008]

Brian_G wrote:

Comparing same sex marriage to civil rights MAKES ME SICK!

Comparing you to a Human being with a logical thought process makes me sick!!!

[WasteWater]

Brian_G wrote:

Comparing same sex marriage to civil rights MAKES ME SICK!

Could it possibly be you are already sick?

[Mona Lott]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
funny it is also the logic of the SCOTUS...
"The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to [marry]."
I think you have some kind of a tic where you laugh when you are wrong...

Um..... where does that say gays can't marry?

[Mona Lott]

Brian_G wrote:

Comparing same sex marriage to civil rights MAKES ME SICK!

Can we have your liver?

[Mona Lott]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Could it possibly be you are already sick?

Yes.