Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Get That Fool wrote:

Who says they are incompatable??? It's been done for thousands of years.....

What kind of la-la land do you live in? Just because people unhappily force themselves together, in order to please OTHERS, doesn't mean that they're happy, or that it's a good idea. Don't you care about people's psychological well being? Don't you care that marriages are deeply desired by BOTH parties, rather than being an act of desperation or convenience?

What exactly IS marriage to you? Obviously not a committment between two people in love.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe the poster you were replying to meant to say that ALL CHURCHES SHOULD EXIT the political arena........you might truly want to read it in the proper context.......it seems that exist was suppose to be exit.....just a typo, but your response was funny.......lol!!!

I know what they were trying to say....must have been a 'Freudian' slip.......:-)

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
You make a good argument that NOBODY needs marriage. I think you and your chosen partner can be happy together without being married. You can pool your resources without the legal assistance of the government. You can be as happy as I can, without marriage.
But does this solve anything? By suggesting that we simply "be happy", does that provide any legal recourse for gay couples? Does it ensure Federal benefits? Does it address discrimination?
No, no, no, and no. So, I'll abandon my quest for marriage, when ALL marriages are abandoned, and everyone is equally happy as you suggest.

Actually the children of o/s couples need marriage. They need the security and stability that comes with having a married mom and dad in the home......

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
What kind of la-la land do you live in? Just because people unhappily force themselves together, in order to please OTHERS, doesn't mean that they're happy, or that it's a good idea. Don't you care about people's psychological well being? Don't you care that marriages are deeply desired by BOTH parties, rather than being an act of desperation or convenience?
What exactly IS marriage to you? Obviously not a committment between two people in love.

Marriage to me is a convenant between a man and a woman and GOD. That is what marriage is to me. You asked....

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
Some become Saints but you won't need to trouble yourself with that.

The vast majority of us do not....we are human too with all that comes with.....

nhjeff wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, "follower of Christ" is the definition of "saint." By you're testimony, I would have thought you considered yourself a saint.
I really wish Christians understood their own belief system a little better. Ever since the clergy was forced to publish the Bible in vulgar languages for all to read, the Christians have no more excuses for their ignorance.

No it isn't...

Saint...noun
1. any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life, formally recognized as such by the Christian Church, especially by canonization.
2. a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence.
3. a founder, sponsor, or patron, as of a movement or organization.
4.(in certain religious groups) a designation applied by the members to themselves.

We all strive to be saints, but we are human in that struggle..

Just another lie to spread around...you all have no shame...

LuLu Ford wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't for the life of me see why they would marry a person of the opposite sex, do you? Does this make any sense?

Does it make sense to you that they lay down with the opposite sex to make children????? Please explain....

Lililth_Satans_Wh_ore wrote:

<quoted text>hey just curious why do you people collect cars on blocks

Because they look so purty out in the front yard...

Get That Fool wrote:

Actually the children of o/s couples need marriage. They need the security and stability that comes with having a married mom and dad in the home......

Then childless couples have no need of marriage, and such arrangements should not be allowed. Obviously, you agree, right? If they can't or won't produce children, they have no need of any such security or stability. Right?

And gay couples who ARE raising children DO need marriage to provide security and stability for their children. You obviously support providing marriage rights to them, right? If children are the qualifying standard, then we need to make sure that these homes have access to marriage. Right?

Of course we know, you support NONE of this. You don't really care if a straight couple has children or not, because you'll give them marriage either way.

And you obviously don't care about the children raised by gay parents, because they can NEVER benefit from marriage providing them security or stability.

You obviously don't care about any gay couples, and their struggle to provide security and stability just for their PARTNER, let alone any children.

You seem to have a complete lack of compassion for anyone outside your "in group", whether they're children or adults. MANY people need more security and stability in their lives, and you're standing directly in their way.

Get That Fool wrote:

Marriage to me is a convenant between a man and a woman and GOD. That is what marriage is to me. You asked....

Then your opinion is completely irrelevent. NOTHING in our society is restricted from public use due to religious labels. You can put the label "god" on anything you want, but it doesn't give you the right to hoard it away from whoever disagrees with you. If you have no problem with two atheists getting married without gods, then you shouldn't care if gay people get married, either. Your focus on gay people proves your bigotry. You should be trying to force EVERYONE to obey your "godly" version of marriage, but you're selective about who you try to force.

Wait until people INVITE your religious meddling in their lives. Go stick your god-labels on the things in YOUR life. You don't decide this for all Americans. You people have become nothing but religious enforcer-thugs, trying to make sure that everyone obeys your dogma. Keep it to yourself.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Then childless couples have no need of marriage, and such arrangements should not be allowed. Obviously, you agree, right? If they can't or won't produce children, they have no need of any such security or stability. Right?

Nope! They can adopt and be a mommy and daddy to a child.

And gay couples who ARE raising children DO need marriage to provide security and stability for their children. You obviously support providing marriage rights to them, right? If children are the qualifying standard, then we need to make sure that these homes have access to marriage. Right?

Well, since ssm does not provide a mommy/daddy in the home, I'm not sure marriage is what that family situation needs....

Of course we know, you support NONE of this. You don't really care if a straight couple has children or not, because you'll give them marriage either way.
And you obviously don't care about the children raised by gay parents, because they can NEVER benefit from marriage providing them security or stability.

Of course I support marriage. Whether or not a couple has kids is irrelevant. Marriage provides the environment for it.

You obviously don't care about any gay couples, and their struggle to provide security and stability just for their PARTNER, let alone any children.
You seem to have a complete lack of compassion for anyone outside your "in group", whether they're children or adults. MANY people need more security and stability in their lives, and you're standing directly in their way.

Here's what I don't care for...I don't care for changing marriage to suit a group that marriage was never intended for.

I don't care for 'sexuality' being projected into marriage. I think there are some things that need to be excluded. To me, ssm is no different than polygamy, incest marriages, etc, all of which produce children.....

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Then your opinion is completely irrelevent. NOTHING in our society is restricted from public use due to religious labels. Keep it to yourself.

I was keeping it to myself, but you asked me.....

Get That Fool wrote:

I was keeping it to myself, but you asked me.....

If someone asks, then by all means share your opinion.

But when I said "keep it to yourself", I meant keep your RELIGION restricted to your own life. Don't attempt to spread it into public, civil areas where it doesn't belong. There are non-religious people out there SHARING the public arena with you, and they are not interested in your supernatural motivations. If you have religious purposes that make you happy, fine for you. But don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
If someone asks, then by all means share your opinion.
But when I said "keep it to yourself", I meant keep your RELIGION restricted to your own life. Don't attempt to spread it into public, civil areas where it doesn't belong. There are non-religious people out there SHARING the public arena with you, and they are not interested in your supernatural motivations. If you have religious purposes that make you happy, fine for you. But don't expect everyone to feel the same way.

I don't expect everyone else to feel the same way I do, but I do, but I do expect the respect to be able to feel as I do without harrassment.

My religion is the center of my being, I must speak my conscience, and I must vote so as well. It is what I must do to be obedient to GOD.

Get That Fool wrote:

Nope! They can adopt and be a mommy and daddy to a child.

But if they refuse, they should be forcibly separated, right? No kids, no marriage, those are your rules...

Get That Fool wrote:

Well, since ssm does not provide a mommy/daddy in the home, I'm not sure marriage is what that family situation needs....

Maybe every family could decide their OWN situation, rather than check with you? I'm sure YOU would like to have that courtesy extended for YOUR family.

Get That Fool wrote:

Whether or not a couple has kids is irrelevant.

At least we agree on that much.

Get That Fool wrote:

Marriage provides the environment for it.

No, committment does that. An open, trusting, respectful relationship does it. Two people who are happy together does it. A peaceful, loving home does it. If you don't have these things, legal marriage won't do much for creating such an environment.

Marriage is only the legal component which says that these two people have chosen each other as life-partners, and that no other force may over-ride their bond. Same-sex couples need this protection, just as much as opposite-sex couples do.

Marriage allows two abusive criminals to join together. They may have children that they abuse physically, psychologically, or sexually. They may beat on each OTHER, and wind up in jail. They might divorce, and marry again. They may have MORE children, with the same abusive spouse, or with a new person.

NEVER will they be denied the right to marry. NEVER will they be told they don't provide a good environment for children. NEVER would anyone lift a finger to stop them from doing it again, and again, and again....

Get That Fool wrote:

Here's what I don't care for...I don't care for changing marriage to suit a group that marriage was never intended for.

Like interracial couples?

Get That Fool wrote:

I don't care for 'sexuality' being projected into marriage.

That doesn't even make any sense. It explains nothing. Sexuality comes from the couple. Leave that to them, and stay out of it.

Get That Fool wrote:

I think there are some things that need to be excluded. To me, ssm is no different than polygamy, incest marriages, etc, all of which produce children.....

None of which are being pursued. Keep your red herrings, they aren't relevent here.

No one is born "polygamous". Nowhere is a young man feeling isolated from his peers because of his "polygamous" differences. There is no young man saying to himself, "I think I'd really enjoy liking that girl, but I can't because there needs to be 8 of her before I can like her." There is no young woman afraid to speak of her inability to love a single man alone, withholding her love until she meets six more men.

Likewise, there are no "incestuous" people, only able to love siblings. There is no young man pining for a beautiful young woman, but unable to make a move because she isn't his sister. There is no woman who fears she will be alone her whole life, only because she has no brother.

These are not real people. There are no movements to end discrimination against these phantoms. These issues do not exist. You may WANT them to exist, so they can distract from the reality, so that your false appeals will sound valid, but they aren't.

Try focusing on real people who DO exist, who ARE speaking to you, people who are on the news, in the streets, on tv, and right here on Topix. These other people, I've never seen them. Are you visiting many polygamy websites? Do you go to many incest headlines, and tell them they don't need marriage either? I think you don't, because there is no such conversation ANYWHERE.

Get That Fool wrote:

I don't expect everyone else to feel the same way I do, but I do, but I do expect the respect to be able to feel as I do without harrassment.

Well isn't that funny, we both want the same thing. But your "harrassment" only comes when you try to FORCE other to live according to your values.

Get That Fool wrote:

My religion is the center of my being, I must speak my conscience, and I must vote so as well. It is what I must do to be obedient to GOD.

But when you vote to make something into LAW, you ARE expecting other to obey it. This is an attempt to FORCE your "conscience" onto others!

I think I have a lot more respect for the Jehovah's Witness demonination of Christianity, for this reason. They don't involve their religion in voting. THEY at least recognize that their religion is a PERSONAL thing, and they don't try to dump it into the public pool for EVERYONE to have to swim in.

If you want to be obedient to your god, then do this: DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF YOUR GENDER. I hope that's not too difficult or confusing. I don't know why you think you have to impose that rule onto EVERYONE, just so that YOU can obey it.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
But if they refuse, they should be forcibly separated, right? No kids, no marriage, those are your rules...

Since when can you 'force' someone to have kids or adopt??? Not going to happen.

Look, I understand this is an emotional and passionate subject for you, you should know it is an emotional and passionate subject for us as well. We know marriage is not meant for 'every' familial situation. With most of us..it stops with ssm. With you it probably stops somewhere further down the trough, but I know you have situations you would not like to see 'marriage' permitted for.
All this means is that we each have our ideals, and our standards, and we each want to see them upheld.

You are now talking about what happens inside some marriages, not what marriage is for. There's a huge difference. We know not everyone who marries will be a responsible husban/wife. However, we can not regulate marital households because we don't like the way they treat their husband/wife. They have avenues in which to work those things out.
I will add, just because o/s couples marry and may not always get it right doesn't mean we need to open it up for further disasters.

Like >interracial couples?

ssm has nothing to do with interracial marriage....

That doesn't even make any sense. It explains nothing. Sexuality comes from the couple. Leave that to them, and stay out of it.

No where on a marriage license are you required to be a heterosexual.....

None of which are being pursued. Keep your red herrings, they aren't relevent here.
No one is born "polygamous". Nowhere is a young man feeling isolated from his peers because of his "polygamous" differences. There is no young man saying to himself, "I think I'd really enjoy liking that girl, but I can't because there needs to be 8 of her before I can like her." There is no young woman afraid to speak of her inability to love a single man alone, withholding her love until she meets six more men.
Likewise, there are no "incestuous" people, only able to love siblings. There is no young man pining for a beautiful young woman, but unable to make a move because she isn't his sister. There is no woman who fears she will be alone her whole life, only because she has no brother.
These are not real people. There are no movements to end discrimination against these phantoms. These issues do not exist. You may WANT them to exist, so they can distract from the reality, so that your false appeals will sound valid, but they aren't.
Try focusing on real people who DO exist, who ARE speaking to you, people who are on the news, in the streets, on tv, and right here on Topix. These other people, I've never seen them. Are you visiting many polygamy websites? Do you go to many incest headlines, and tell them they don't need marriage either? I think you don't, because there is no such conversation ANYWHERE.

There is no proof you are born as you say you are. You may not be able to change it, but who's to say why that is? Some people have changed it.
Actually, you are wrong. Polygamists have actually come out into the open quite recently in the media. Others will soon follow.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
Well isn't that funny, we both want the same thing. But your "harrassment" only comes when you try to FORCE other to live according to your values.

Aren't we all trying to voice our values in our lives??? Aren't you trying to 'force' your values on me???

But when you vote to make something into LAW, you ARE expecting other to obey it. This is an attempt to FORCE your "conscience" onto others!
I think I have a lot more respect for the Jehovah's Witness demonination of Christianity, for this reason. They don't involve their religion in voting. THEY at least recognize that their religion is a PERSONAL thing, and they don't try to dump it into the public pool for EVERYONE to have to swim in.
If you want to be obedient to your god, then do this: DON'T MARRY SOMEONE OF YOUR GENDER. I hope that's not too difficult or confusing. I don't know why you think you have to impose that rule onto EVERYONE, just so that YOU can obey it.

Of course I'd like the law to reflect my conscience, doesn't everyone????

I can not place a vote saying GOD is wrong. That to me would be the wrong thing to do.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually the children of o/s couples need marriage. They need the security and stability that comes with having a married mom and dad in the home......

How does extending marriage rights to same-sex couples have any effect on those things?

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
How does extending marriage rights to same-sex couples have any effect on those things?

That wasn't the context in which we were discussing 'those things'.