Maryland Gay Marriage Could Hinge on Black Churches

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>If you had an argument instead of an excuse, you'd be on track. I don't insult you and I'll thank you not to insult posters on this thread.
We don't like trolls.

I love them.They often do more to support my views by their crazy ravings than I can.

Like you Brian.

Who elected you Topix sheriff?

Insults? You insult people so often and are such a brain dead clump you don't even understand how foolish you behave most the time.

And your side seems to like trolls as well since I have never seen you post the same reply to them when they post some of the crap I've read on these boards.

Spare me your self righteous indignation you self important twerp.

Man up. If you can't take the heat leave the kitchen little boy.

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>Some feel the Commerce clause in Article 1 sec * DOES give Congress that power.
But if you want to get technical the right to bear arms depends on a well regulated State militia. It doesn't grant individuals the right to arm themselves with whatever they want.
It's seems a bit contradictory to say on one hand Congress has the power to ban you from buying things but has no power to say you must posses something or be fined.

not only that, but the constitution only granted citizens the right to keep and bear arms. the problem is, however, at the time that the document was written only the landed gentry were citizens. indians weren't citizens, the poor weren't citizens, women weren't citizens, debtors weren't citizens, and blacks weren't even considered people... children were even less than the blacks until they reached a 'useful' age when they could work alongside a man. until that point they were called 'encumbrances'.

therefore noone on this list was allowed to keep and bear arms... only the aristocracy.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Romney's a BIGGER flopper than President Obama any day of the week!!!

I'm surelittle Brian hopes to avoid a detailed look at the fliflops of the Republican Candidates that got trotted out in the insane clown posse thislast year and a half.

Michelle Bachmann's Swiss Citizenship ring a bell?

Newt's divorces and changing religions?

LMAO

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
Really, I thought the issue was 'equality'. I guess it isn't about that after all.

It is. Allowing two people to marry regardless of sexual orientation (which you want to force into marriage laws by the way) has nothing to do with changing the laws regarding polygamy.

One man + one women = 2 people
One man + one man = 2 people
One woman + one woman = 2 people

Marriage = 2 people

Where do you see 1+1 equaling something besides 2?

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
You like beating dead horses?
Knock yourself out. Polygamy isn't even on the table.

I think we should just put GTF on the same list we have going for David Moore.

Flush the toilet on the troll already.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
So now 'equality' is a dead horse??? That's what I'm discussing. What are you discussing?????

You entered the conversation late.

The topic under discussion is the influence Black Churches may have on enforcing current marriage laws equally to all US Citizens.

I'm sure you'd like to discuss a bunch of off topic crap like little Brian but we don't have to pay any attention to you.

So Long, Farewell
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>I think we should just put GTF on the same list we have going for David Moore.
Flush the toilet on the troll already.

i've already got her on that list along with korn 2 and a couple of other lost soles.

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>I think we should just put GTF on the same list we have going for David Moore.
Flush the toilet on the troll already.

you've got to admit, anyway, at least she's off her pseudo-religious schtick and has gotten down to that good old honest to goodness hatred and bitterness.

DNF wrote:

<quoted text>You entered the conversation late.
The topic under discussion is the influence Black Churches may have on enforcing current marriage laws equally to all US Citizens.
I'm sure you'd like to discuss a bunch of off topic crap like little Brian but we don't have to pay any attention to you.
So Long, Farewell
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

C-ya!!

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
you've got to admit, anyway, at least she's off her pseudo-religious schtick and has gotten down to that good old honest to goodness hatred and bitterness.

Wow! I'm a star huh??? Even when I'm not on here you can't help but think of me. That's tweet....

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
There IS more to it. People are far more complex than just numbers.
But gay people are not so different from straight people. We crave companionship. We suffer from loneliness. We fall in love. We succeed better in life when we're partnered. We have longer, happier lives as a result.
Just like you.
But why do you want to DENY us our relationships? Why do you want our partners and families to go unprotected? Why such careless disregard for the well-being of gay people?

No one is denying you anythingl. If you want to be in a relationship, you go right on ahead. I really hope you are happy. Marriage is not centered around homosexuality. It is centered around GOD (for most of us) and family.

Savant wrote:

<quoted text>
it remains to be seen how the November election will turn out. And it may be that those who vote against Obama simply because of his stance on gay marriage are people who would have voted against him anyway.

That may be true of those other than his African
American/Latino base....

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is denying you anythingl. If you want to be in a relationship, you go right on ahead. I really hope you are happy. Marriage is not centered around homosexuality. It is centered around GOD (for most of us) and family.

Your god does not exist, and gay people have families.

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
There IS more to it. People are far more complex than just numbers.
But gay people are not so different from straight people. We crave companionship. We suffer from loneliness. We fall in love. We succeed better in life when we're partnered. We have longer, happier lives as a result.
Just like you.
But why do you want to DENY us our relationships? Why do you want our partners and families to go unprotected? Why such careless disregard for the well-being of gay people?

2 people does not mean any two people. A man and a woman does not equal a man and a man, a woman and a woman.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
not only that, but the constitution only granted citizens the right to keep and bear arms. the problem is, however, at the time that the document was written only the landed gentry were citizens. indians weren't citizens, the poor weren't citizens, women weren't citizens, debtors weren't citizens, and blacks weren't even considered people... children were even less than the blacks until they reached a 'useful' age when they could work alongside a man. until that point they were called 'encumbrances'.
therefore noone on this list was allowed to keep and bear arms... only the aristocracy.

Firearms only fired one shot at a time. Then it took at least a half-minute to prepare another round unless you had a helper and a couple of rifles. There were no assault rifles, automatics, or semi-automatics. There were no amour piercing bullets either.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
2 people does not mean any two people. A man and a woman does not equal a man and a man, a woman and a woman.

SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
you've got to admit, anyway, at least she's off her pseudo-religious schtick and has gotten down to that good old honest to goodness hatred and bitterness.

Yup now she's off on her 1+1 +1 +1 = 2 lunacy. Funny that she doesn't have the backbone to toss her equality crap into the faces of Blacks or Hispanics. And she sure as hell doesn't want polygamists to have marriage rights. After all she insists the Bible and God made marriage one man and one woman and anything else is perversion and sin.

The idea that an oppressed community or group of people with a common interest don't need to worry about everyone else first is beyond her.

Blacks were fighting for equal rights for Blacks not polygamists or Asian Americans or any other group. Does that mean their fight for equality is tainted or invalid?

Of course not.

dances with weebles wrote:

<quoted text>
you've got to admit, anyway, at least she's off her pseudo-religious schtick and has gotten down to that good old honest to goodness hatred and bitterness.

Oh you should join me on the NJ threads. She's over there claiming environment and society don't affect the mental health of gays and lesbians and is trying to use studies by the APA to prove it. She blames all those issues like stress anxiety, depression and all that on our orientation.

The girl can't keep her story straight! She says environment affects sexual orientation. Then dismisses it when it comes to mental health problems drug abuse and the rest.

But here's the real kicker. If environment doesn't affect the mental health of gays and lesbians how can our sexual orientation affect the marriages or mental and spiritual health of heterosexuals?

Get That Fool wrote:

No one is denying you anythingl.

I want to be legally bonded to my one and only chosen partner in a way that is recognized in every state of our Union. Would you GRANT me this or DENY me this?

Get That Fool wrote:

If you want to be in a relationship, you go right on ahead.

Oh, "A Relationship". How kind of you to hand out human connections as you see fit. May we call it "love", also? May we hold hands, or is that yours?

Get That Fool wrote:

I really hope you are happy.

Conditionally though, eh?

I can handle my OWN happiness, thank you, if you'll kindly get out of the WAY. Being able to pursue the same social and cultural rites and conventions that everyone ELSE does will go a long way toward my happiness. I don't remember anyone inviting you to block me from it.

Get That Fool wrote:

Marriage is not centered around homosexuality.

What a shallow and ignorant thing to say. Of course it isn't.

It's centered around love, and commitment, and togetherness, and mutual desire for spending one's life with someone else.

I'm terribly sorry that I don't experience love in the way that you would approve, but perhaps you could see that it's not up to you to prevent me from feeling love, and you might possibly stop being a human wall to my happiness?

Since you purport to hope that I am happy?

Get That Fool wrote:

It is centered around GOD (for most of us) and family.

You know, you are free to celebrate your religious beliefs as you see fit. I don't want to stop that.

But that doesn't mean that you get to define those things for OTHERS. I don't see you stopping atheists from marrying, or Buddhists, or even Satanists.

You can tell me that God approves of atheist marriages, as long as they're man+woman, but you can't tell me that He approves of Satanist weddings, no matter WHAT gender they are. Yet Satanists can get married.

We are not trying to take anything away from you. Why do you want to take this from us? How ELSE should we protect our loved ones within our nation? What would you HAVE us do?

Get That Fool wrote:

2 people does not mean any two people. A man and a woman does not equal a man and a man, a woman and a woman.

Why not?

There aren't MANY that feel that way, but there are SOME.

You can't stop them. You didn't make them this way. Why do you need to control them? Just because it isn't something YOU would like, doesn't make it wrong.

Their love is as good as yours. Their bond is as strong as yours.

Not everyone's lives MUST produce children. Not everyone WILL. So what? This is not the final purpose of every human. This should not be the deciding factor if they can join their lives with another of their choice. Marriage does NOT need to be based on this. If a couple does not, or CAN not, produce children, they can still marry. Why should we be different?