Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on ...

Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

There are 9646 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.

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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8591 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
There is plenty of evidence which shows a child does not necessarily do better with biological parents. The Child Protective Services records across the country are filled with examples of children being so severely abused by their biological parents they are removed from those biological parents by the courts.(Yet the marriage remains legally valid, even when they kill the child.)
And yes, I can testify "a straight child would CHOSE having two dads over having a mom". I have supervised placements where that was exactly the case. The boy wanted to stay with his gay dads, rather than return home to his straight mother, or even go to another home with straight parents. I have seen this on more than one occasion. These kids were much more healthy in gay parent homes than they were with their biological parents.
Your version of utopia is not even close to the real world. Denial of reality only changes it in your own mind.
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?
There is plenty of evidence which shows a child does not necessarily do better with biological parents. The Child Protective Services records across the country are filled with examples of children being so severely abused by their biological parents they are removed from those biological parents by the courts.(Yet the marriage remains legally valid, even when they kill the child.)

And yes, I can testify "a straight child would CHOSE having two dads over having a mom". I have supervised placements where that was exactly the case. The boy wanted to stay with his gay dads, rather than return home to his straight mother, or even go to another home with straight parents. I have seen this on more than one occasion. These kids were much more healthy in gay parent homes than they were with their biological parents.

Your version of utopia is not even close to the real world. Denial of reality only changes it in your own mind.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8592 Dec 5, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Deflection and diversion.

You are conflating rights with abilities. As soon as men can become pregnant, they too will have the right to abortion under the same laws that apply to women today. Men are not prohibited from having an abortion, they simply as yet, never need one.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8593 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!"
Student loans are not a fundamental right.

Marriage is a fundamental right.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8594 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
There is plenty of evidence which shows a child does not necessarily do better with biological parents. The Child Protective Services records across the country are filled with examples of children being so severely abused by their biological parents they are removed from those biological parents by the courts.(Yet the marriage remains legally valid, even when they kill the child.)
as do gays. But again, ALL other things being equal a mom and dad is best. Nothing you write speaks to that.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

And yes, I can testify "a straight child would CHOSE having two dads over having a mom". I have supervised placements where that was exactly the case. The boy wanted to stay with his gay dads, rather than return home to his straight mother,
no, those are choices between 2 existing parents...
I am saying, a straight couple show up at the orphanage as do a gay couple, they are exactly the same in every other regard, age, money, love, time, etc....
the young girl of about six is given the choice...
do you really expect anyone to believe she would opt out of having a mother?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8595 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Deflection and diversion.
You are conflating rights with abilities. As soon as men can become pregnant, they too will have the right
in both cases, abortion and marriage, we are saying the right is dependent on the ability...

its not deflection, your side claims a right can not be based a physical ability, yet here is one, a fundamental right, no less, that is offered to some and denied to others based on reproductive abilities...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#8596 Dec 5, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Student loans are not a fundamental right.
Marriage is a fundamental right.
and the circle is complete...
so why are courts using rational basis?
gay marriage is not a fundamental right.

see how a student loan, a benefit, is not a right, but educational freedom itself, IS a right?
now you have hit on the distinction between a legislative benefit and a constitutional right...

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.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min RetiredProfessional 1,785,732
News Sarah Huckabee Sanders guide to refusing servic... 5 min Annie Oakly 15
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 41 min Dada 10,075
News Kansas is ground zero of illegal voting, yet fe... 55 min tomin cali 5
News Is the Border in Crisis? 'We're Doing Fine, Qui... 1 hr THOUGHTS 7
News SC state senator refers to candidate as 'raghead' (Jun '10) 5 hr ben 1,187
News Trump says Obama 'lost Crimea' when Putin invad... 6 hr thepoo10goph8same... 4