Maryland Might Recognize Marriages
There are several degrees of possibilities in the conversation about marriage equality. For instance, there are those who advocate the establishment of legally recognized civil unions, which would provide the legal and financial advantages of marriage, but not call it "marriage." Then there are places where weddings between couples of the same sex cannot be performed, but if a couple was married in another state it would be recognized there. And some places have just decided to let gay and lesbian couples marry like anybody else.
Maryland doesn't allow any of it. But wait...
So you'd go to somewhere more enlightened, like Iowa, get married, and come home again with all the benefits of marriage. Sure, it makes it hard to invite your friends to the wedding, but it seems a whole lot better than nothing, which is what we have now.
Skipping a little...
It seems silly to me not to let gay and lesbian couples marry. What could it possibly hurt? You take two people, they love one another, they want to start a home and a family, why in the world wouldn't you let them?
Maryland doesn't allow any of it. But wait...
Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler is exploring whether same-sex marriages performed in other states can be recognized in Maryland, a move that could open an avenue for legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples who have been rebuffed by the courts and legislature here.
The exercise puts Gansler - a Democrat and vocal proponent of same-sex marriage - in a difficult position. Maryland law clearly defines marriage as between a man and a woman, but the state also adheres to a long-standing legal principle that generally acknowledges couples married elsewhere.
Gay-rights activists say the ability to marry would not only strengthen their relationships but confer hundreds of rights, benefits and responsibilities on them, including community property protections, control over funeral arrangements of a spouse and an obligation to pay child support. State studies gay nuptials
So you'd go to somewhere more enlightened, like Iowa, get married, and come home again with all the benefits of marriage. Sure, it makes it hard to invite your friends to the wedding, but it seems a whole lot better than nothing, which is what we have now.
Skipping a little...
"In some ways, this could be a back door toward marriage equality," said Del. Heather R. Mizeur, a Montgomery County Democrat who obtained a marriage license with her wife, Deborah, last year in California. "I hold out hope for the day that it's part of our everyday culture here in Maryland, and it's no big deal."
The debate comes after New York Gov. David A. Paterson, a Democrat, signed an executive order last year directing state agencies to recognize same-sex nuptials performed in other jurisdictions.
The District of Columbia did the same through legislation passed by the City Council and signed by Mayor Adrian Fenty this month.
The gay-marriage movement has been building nationwide but so far has been stymied in Maryland.
While Gov. Martin O'Malley and the General Assembly have extended a number of rights and benefits to gay and lesbian couples, they have stopped short of endorsing same-sex unions. The Democratic governor has said he would prefer that the state adopt civil unions.
"You can't understate the significance of being married," said Sen. Richard S. Madaleno, a Montgomery County Democrat who is openly gay and requested the attorney general's opinion. "People in our state get married every day, and to be denied the ability to do that is very dispiriting."
It seems silly to me not to let gay and lesbian couples marry. What could it possibly hurt? You take two people, they love one another, they want to start a home and a family, why in the world wouldn't you let them?
posted by JimK at 10:23 AM
61 Comments:
"People in our state get married every day, and to be denied the ability to do that is very dispiriting."
Rich, welcome to planet Earth. Gays haven't been able to "marry" each other ever.
You might have thought of that before you went down that path.
"It seems silly to me not to let gay and lesbian couples marry. What could it possibly hurt? You take two people, they love one another, they want to start a home and a family, why in the world wouldn't you let them?"
Same reason girls don't have bar mitzvahs.
They have bat mitzvahs.
Gay don't have marriages, they deviant civil unions.
AnonBigot:
It´s the 14th Amendment. Read it.
You are doing exactly what the Nazis did with the Jews: considering them just a little bit less than human so that you take away their liberty.
You´ve already lost this "culture war."
Derrick
You're a dangerous idiot.
Marriage has been a union between man and woman since the beginning.
To say keeping that way is the equivalent of Nazism is to trivialize the evil of Hitler's Germany.
You've got a sick and twisted mind.
Get help.
Andrea- not anon
To anon- you make no sense. Bar and Bat mitzvahs are the same in my synagogue- but Bar means son and Bat means daughter. Both boys and girls learn equally and within their ability(having nothing to do with gender)do parts of the serrvice, read Torah and Haftorah. There is absolutely no comparison to marriage
You are a foolish, mean spirited, small minded person but then that is nothing new.
Gays object to be given every advantage of marriage unless it is called that.
As soon as they make sure there is no word that means a union between man and woman, they will stop getting "married", they will lose interest, as they will have achieved their goal:
The destruction of marriage.
I think straight people have done a good enough job ruining "traditional" marriage by themselves:
1. A woman not being a virgin when she gets married--and her fiancee NOT stoning her for it? Not very traditional according to the Bible.
2. Divorce? Not very traditional.
3. People of different faiths getting married? Not very traditional.
4. Mixed race marriage? Not very traditional.
5. Hyphenated last names? Not very traditional.
Like I already said: you´ve lost this culture war and you´re on the wrong side of history. You´re more than welcome to stay there, but you anti-equality folks will be remembered for what you were and are: hateful people who tried to use religion to suppress and repress minorities because you viewed them as less than human (like slave owners/traders viewed their African American slaves as less than human so that they wouldn´t feel guilt for what they were doing--in the name of God).
Yeah, good luck with that.
I think this video sums it up pretty well: "The Defenders"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA
"hateful people who tried to use religion to suppress and repress minorities because you viewed them as less than human"
Boy, you are an enlightened fellow.
Are you in favor of people marrying animals, polygamy, incest, pedophilia or necrophilia?
Those are the activities of a minority, just like homosexuality.
Remember only conservatives are discriminating enough to feel disgust- and that's one minority you want to avoid!
No, that´s not it.
It just means that liberals have evolved more quickly than conservatives! :-P
So, evolve already, will you? You´ve got a lot of catching up to do.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Derrick writes,
I think straight people have done a good enough job ruining "traditional" marriage by themselvesSadly I agree...which begs the question, and something I honestly wonder about: why do gays and lesbians want a social institution that is damaged goods? I have my theory, but I would like to hear other ideas.
May 31, 2009 10:47 PM
Jim,
Can you help me out here...even though I am putting space between my comments and those of others, it would seem that Blogger still puts them together (even when I have previewed and it appears they are separated). Am I doing something wrong here?
Orin
It´s probably karma, Orin.
testing
testing
testing
"So, evolve already, will you? You´ve got a lot of catching up to do."
Interesting how Derrick ducks and dodges here.
Derrick, we'd all like to know if support for "sexual minorities" extends to all deviancies or if homosexuality is just a bais on your part.
Here's Derrick's list of things that he thinks justify redefining marriage because they also redefine marriage, in his demented opinion:
"1. A woman not being a virgin when she gets married--and her fiancee NOT stoning her for it? Not very traditional according to the Bible."
Ever read the story of Rahab in the Bible? She was a prostitue. Married Salmon, even though this was known. Her son was Boaz, who figures in the story of Ruth. Jesus was a decendant.
"2. Divorce? Not very traditional."
There is provision for divorce in Old Testament law and it is generally considered justifiable under some circumstances by Christians. Hardly untraditional or redefining.
"3. People of different faiths getting married? Not very traditional."
Never a good idea if one takes their faith seriously.
"4. Mixed race marriage? Not very traditional."
Actually, Moses married an Ethiopian. His sister mocked him for it but God gave her leprosy as punishment, turning her a sickly shade of white.
An American example? How about Pocahantas and John Rolfe?
"5. Hyphenated last names? Not very traditional."
Trivial.
What Derrick's examples share is that don't involve any redefinition of the term "marriage". The definition was never, for example, a union of a man and woman of the same race.
Orin asked:
“Sadly I agree...which begs the question, and something I honestly wonder about: why do gays and lesbians want a social institution that is damaged goods?”
A whole lot of reasons, and the short list I have time to come with while I’m eating my breakfast just scratches the surface:
Being able to pick up your spouse’s child from school when they get sick. ( One lesbian couple has a spouse that works an hour away from where her kids go to school, but if one of them gets sick, her partner, who is only 10 minutes away, is not allowed to pick them up because she’s not their “biological parent” or “married” to the biological parent.” The fact that they all live together as a family and she has helped raise them for the past 5 years is of no consequence. )
Being able to visit your sick spouse in the hospital. ( I know a gay pastor who laments being able to visit ill congregants in the hospital while their own gay spouse is not – because they are not “married” or “family.”)
Being able to share a room together in a nursing home – something that is predominantly reserved for “married” couples. ( I have heard of a “gay friendly” nursing home being built, but currently those are few and far between. )
Being able to stay in one’s home of 30 years after your partner dies without suddenly owing a huge tax bill on inheriting the full value of the house – like “married” people do.
Being able to insure your spouse and his or her children through your company sponsored health plan like other “married” people, rather than doing without or paying exorbitant rates to self-insure.
Some of the items above can be overcome with a bunch of legal documents – power of attorney, setting up and maintaining a living trust, medical decision papers, etc. This assumes of course you have enough money to hire attorneys to set up and maintain all of these things – and you’re aware of these problems before you find out that unlike a “married” couple, you had to jump through a bunch of legal hoops to have some type of legal recourse to do what “married” couples take for granted.
A few years ago, some legislatures, gay folks and their allies worked together to get Civil Unions recognized. I believe at the time, law makers and gay folks alike believed that this would give them the same legal rights as people who were “married.” This may have been the original intent, but unfortunately, that’s not what happened. When administrators in hospitals, schools, and insurance companies started denying people rights that most people take for granted because those only applied to “married” people, and not those in “civil unions,” the problems became clear.
If folks from both sides of the liberal / conservative debate had worked together several years ago to make civil unions valid, workable, and insure that they included ALL of the same legal rights as “married” people, we wouldn’t be here now, with such a terrible concern over the oh-so-sacred word (should I use calligraphy?): “marriage.”
I find the focus on keeping the “definition of the word marriage” so clean and pure and sacred somewhat disingenuous. Why? Because I know that even if gays were suddenly allowed to marry all over the world tomorrow, there are still going to be plenty of people complaining and muttering “that’s not a REAL marriage, that’s a GAY marriage.” The definition of marriage for these folks will never change, and it doesn’t have to – and it won’t – even if gays are allowed to marry. We are all entitled to our own opinions. We just can’t expect everyone to agree with us.
Peace,
Cynthia
Some of the items above can be overcome with a bunch of legal documents – power of attorney, setting up and maintaining a living trust, medical decision papers, etc. This assumes of course you have enough money to hire attorneys to set up and maintain all of these things – and you’re aware of these problems before you find out that unlike a “married” couple, you had to jump through a bunch of legal hoops to have some type of legal recourse to do what “married” couples take for granted.
And it also assumes that even if you have all the documentation required, the homophobes working at the hospital will let you in to visit your partner. Don't count on it.
Orin -- After using a closing HTML command in the form of "bracket-slash-letter-bracket," put two line breaks ("bracket-br-bracket") for a double-space, or one for a single space.
Anon writes:
"As soon as they make sure there is no word that means a union between man and woman, they will stop getting 'married', they will lose interest, as they will have achieved their goal:
"The destruction of marriage."
Hmm. I know a lot of gay couples who want to be married, and some who are now married. Anon, do you think they are hiding their true motives from me?
Anon, what is the basis for your belief that "THEY" want to destroy all marriage, whether opposite gender or same gender? An explication of your reasoning and/or evidence might be very enlightening to the rest of us.
Thanks for the interesting post, Cynthia.
Orin, you are our most frequent reasonable blogger who opposes same-gender marriage. Anonymous above is pulling a WBC on you and making grotesquely offensive statements in support of your position. He's giving that position a bad name. Do you agree with the stuff he says? If not, I hope you make that clear, and disassociate yourself from him and his statements.
rrjr
Robert
Drick is giving your ridiculous position an even worse name by comparing opposition to changing the definition of marriage with Nazism.
Will you disaasociate yourself from him?
He's a real creep!
yeah, rrjr
will you make that clear?
rrjr
what more can we say?
Orin said "why do gays and lesbians want a social institution that is damaged goods?"
The same reason straights want a social institution that is damaged goods. Really Orin, this isn't that hard.
Bad anonymous said "Derrick is giving your position an even worse name by comparing opposition to changing the definition of marriage with Nazism.".
No, Derrick compared your attempts to dehumanize gays with the Nazi's attempts to dehumanize Jews. You and the Nazis used the same methods to foment hatred against those who've harmed no one - its a perfectly valid comparison. In fact a lot of the anti-gay Christian rhetoric placed side by side with the anti-semetic Nazi rhetoric is virtually identical other than "gay" being substituted for "jew". Just as you refer to gays as "deviants" so did the Nazis refer to Jews as "deviants". You and the Nazis had a lot in common.
Bad anonymous said "Will you disaasociate yourself from him?".
Seeing as you can't spell disassociate you must have gone to a religious school.
except that Jews aren't deviant but gays are, by definition
gays also were the early members of the Nazi movement and influential in their worst and most evil practices
beyond that, we weren't talking about gay rights, in general, but whether an institution specific to heterosexuality should be replaced with something that includes homosexuality
now stop trying to steal the limelight from Drick
he's the original vile participant in this conversation
"Seeing as you can't spell disassociate you must have gone to a religious school."
No, I went to public school but it's nice to see you're paying attention and seething over your rhetorical defeats.
This post has been removed by the author.
Bad anonymous said "except that Jews aren't deviant but gays are, by definition".
Deviant means outside of the average, so Jews are by definition deviants - they only represent a few percent of the population - much like gays and geniuses.
Bad anonymous said "gays also were the early members of the Nazi movement and influential in their worst and most evil practices".
All lies made up by the Christian reconstructionist Scott Lively - a member of a group who's tenets include putting gays to death. Just like the Nazis did with the Jews, these Christians attempt to bring about their genocide by demonizing the target of their hatred.
The fact is that if you want to blame Naziism on a sexuality, the Nazis were of course overwhelmingly heterosexual. And Christian. Christianity was one of the factors that motivated Hitler to kill the Jews:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922
you're a trip, prey-a
no one agrees that the nazi-gay connection is made up except you and your serial history-denying buddy and, let's face it, based on his comments here, Robert's not exactly all there, if you know what I mean
Jews are not deviant, as you say
they are part of the mainstream of history and the influence of their culture and thought is seen clearly in the fact that the religious beliefs of a majority of the world's people have their roots in the religion of the Jewish people
the deviance of gays is based on their behavior
Hitler, btw, believed lying was a legitimate political technique and was quoted by aides ridiculing Christianity as weak
Orin -- After using a closing HTML command in the form of "bracket-slash-letter-bracket," put two line breaks ("bracket-br-bracket") for a double-space, or one for a single space.
Aunt Bea is trying to say you should put <br> <br> to start a new line after something that is italicized or bold or is a link.
JimK
Bad anonymous said "no one agrees that the nazi-gay connection is made up".
Lively's anti-gay book has been throroughly discredited, no real historian believes the Nazi party was dominated by gays. If you took away the minute number of Nazis who were gays the Nazi party and its history would have been totally unchanged. If you took away the Christians, not only would the Nazi party have completely disappeared, Nazi Germany itself would have never existed.
Bad anonymous said "Jews are not deviant, as you say".
Of course they are. To be deviant is to vary from the average - Jews are a tiny minority and by defintion deviant - not that deviation is a bad thing - gays and geniuses are deviants as well.
Bad anonymous said "Hitler, btw, believed lying was a legitimate political technique and was quoted by aides ridiculing Christianity as weak".
There is no such quote. The fabricated "Table Talk" contains that quote but was edited by the anti-Catholic Borman who noted that he would revise the document as he saw fit. Hitler affirmed his christianity throughout his life in speechs, proclaimations, radio addresses, books and all manner of venues. There is no recorded instance of him disparaging Christianity other than the thoroughly discredited "Table Talk".
From the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. In the 1920s, Hitler's German Workers' Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a "Programme" with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a "positive" Christianity:
24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.
Hitler's speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of faith. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveals the strength of his Christian feelings:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
"The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession."
No, because no Christian creed or confession held Hitler's views. He made up his own version because he thought the Christian church was weak.
The stature of Jesus Christ is such that everyone tries to create their own version to justify themselves.
Thus, you get things like Marxist theology and the Christian white supremacists and Hindus who say he was an "avatar" and Buddhists who say he was a bodhisattva and Muslims who put him in their list of prophets and atheists who say they think his miracles and quotes about deity were later added but that they believe in the principles of Jesus. Heck, there are even gays who say they are Christians or that Jesus was gay.
Pick up a Bible and find the real Jesus.
When the Romans came to arrest him, Peter fought back and injured one of the soldiers. Jesus healed the soldier and told Peter to put away his sword. Those who live by the sword will die by the sword, he said.
Doesn't sound like your typical Nazi to me.
Bad anonymous said "No, because no Christian creed or confession held Hitler's views."
Wrong. There are over 30,000 varieties of Christianity. Many, if not most of them think they are the one true Christianity but none can deny to the other the label of Christian. Attempts to do so are a logical fallacy know as the "No true Scotsman" fallacy:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/No_True_Scotsman
With the exception of those with a Christianist agenda it is universally accepted that Hitler and the Nazis were Christians as were the millions upon millions of Germans that voted them into power. Hitler was just as much a Christian as you are and in fact, as previously noted, you share much in common with him.
Bad anonymous said "Pick up a Bible and find the real Jesus."
I've read your bible and its pretty clear I know a good deal more about it than you do.
Bad anonymous said "Doesn't sound like your typical Nazi to me."
Jesus said he had come to turn families against each other, to bring a sword, not peace, he scolded the people for not stoning their children to death as the bible commanded, he introduced the concept of eternal torture for the most trivial of "crimes", an idea so heinous it never even occurred ot the Jews whom you claim a heritage from. In some ways Jesus was worse than the Nazis - the Nazis didn't eternally torture people for thought crimes.
Further to bad anonymous's reply "No, because no Christian creed or confession held Hitler's views.".
Obviously they did. The Church signed the concordat with Hitler and no Nazi was ever excomunicated from the church. Clearly the leader of Christianity fully supported and endorsed Hitler and his Christian views.
Anon,
Are you going to accept the challenge to answer the question I posed to you earier today?
Anon writes:
"As soon as they make sure there is no word that means a union between man and woman, they will stop getting 'married', they will lose interest, as they will have achieved their goal:
"The destruction of marriage."
Hmm. I know a lot of gay couples who want to be married, and some who are now married. Anon, do you think they are hiding their true motives from me?
Anon, what is the basis for your belief that "THEY" want to destroy all marriage, whether opposite gender or same gender? An explication of your reasoning and/or evidence might be very enlightening to the rest of us.
June 01, 2009 11:48 AM
"I've read your bible and its pretty clear I know a good deal more about it than you do."
Yeah. That's about as clear as the Ocean off Atlantic City.
Too bad you've never understood a thing you read.
Or, could it be that you do understand and are deceitfully attacking it?
Once you told us you were "fond of the fictional Jesus character".
Now, you say he's worse than Nazis.
Do you need treatment for schizophrenia too?
"Jesus said he had come to turn families against each other, to bring a sword, not peace,"
Who did he say would be holding that sword, Priya?
"he scolded the people for not stoning their children to death as the bible commanded,"
Could you specify the verse you are twisting?
Thank you.
"he introduced the concept of eternal torture for the most trivial of "crimes", an idea so heinous it never even occurred ot the Jews whom you claim a heritage from."
Here's a perfect example. Jesus came to save people from the destiny they are preparing for themselves by rejecting God.
"In some ways Jesus was worse than the Nazis - the Nazis didn't eternally torture people for thought crimes."
Nor did Jesus, which you should know since you claim to be so familiar with scripture.
The Nazis, btw, inflicted as much torture as they had the power to acomplish.
"The Church signed the concordat with Hitler and no Nazi was ever excomunicated from the church. Clearly the leader of Christianity fully supported and endorsed Hitler and his Christian views."
Are you talking about the Catholic Church? Problem is, they consider themselves a state and were trying to remain neutral to avoid politics.
As spineless as they may have been, no one endorsed Hitler's new theology.
"Hmm. I know a lot of gay couples who want to be married, and some who are now married. Anon, do you think they are hiding their true motives from me?"
Did they tell you their motive?
Gays want to be in committed but open relationships. Fidelity is not part of the game. It's not the same as marriage in the traditional sense.
The whole movement didn't start with individuals but with advocacy organizations.
Of course everything started with advocacy groups, AnonBigot.
Strength in numbers!!
After all, who was going to stand up against an entire nation brainwashed to hate gays by horrible interpretations of a couple of lines in the Bible?
Stop blogging and spend some time with your family.
good suggestion, Derrick
I guess you're not all bad
Anon,
You write, in explaining why you believe there is a gay conspiracy to destroy all marriage, both straight and gay:
"Fidelity is not part of the game."
So am I correct to conclude that your view is that gay people are inherently less monogamous than straight people, regardless of the right to marry? If so, you are sadly the prisoner of your own prejudices.
You further write that the "whole movement didn't start with individuals but with advocacy organizations." And the American Revolution didn't start with individuals, but with the Sons of Liberty.
Bad anonymous said "Once you told us you were "fond of the fictional Jesus character".".
I don't recall saying that - provide a link to the quote.
I said "Jesus said he had come to turn families against each other, to bring a sword, not peace,"
Bad anonymous asked "Who did he say would be holding that sword, Priya?".
He said he was holding it. He is the one bringing destruction and violence.
I said "he scolded the people for not stoning their children to death as the bible commanded,"
Bad anonymous asked "Could you specify the verse you are twisting?".
I'm not twisting anything. Jesus was very clear about that:
Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law. (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) Mark 7:9-10
Here are some more atrocities by your "loving" Jesus:
Matthew
747 Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. 5:17
755 Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21
764 Jesus had no problem with the idea of drowning everyone on earth in the flood. It'll be just like that when he returns. 24:37
Mark
769 Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12
Luke
782 Jesus says that God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47
787 In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27
John
788 As an example to parents everywhere and to save the world (from himself), God had his own son tortured and killed. 3:16
791 Jesus believes people are crippled by God as a punishment for sin. He tells a crippled man, after healing him, to "sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." 5:14
Acts
794 Peter claims that Dt.18:18-19 refers to Jesus, saying that those who refuse to follow him (all non-Christians) must be killed. 3:23
Romans
802 Homosexuals (those "without natural affection") and their supporters (those "that have pleasure in them") are "worthy of death." 1:31-32
The guilty are "justified" and "saved from wrath" by the blood of an innocent victim. 5:9
God punishes everyone for someone else's sin; then he saves them by killing an innocent victim. 5:12
Ephesians
God had his son murdered to keep himself from hurting others for things they didn't do. 1:7
The bloody death of Jesus smelled good to God. 5:2
Colossians
813 God bought us with someone else's blood. 1:14
God makes peace through blood. 1:19-20
2 Thessalonians
818 God will cause us to believe lies so that he can damn our souls to hell. 2:11-12
Hebrews
819 God will not forgive us unless we shed the blood of some innocent creature. 9:13-14, 22
Revelation
833 Everyone on earth will wail because of Jesus. 1:7
I said "he introduced the concept of eternal torture for the most trivial of "crimes", an idea so heinous it never even occurred ot the Jews whom you claim a heritage from."
Bad anonymous replied "Here's a perfect example. Jesus came to save people from the destiny they are preparing for themselves by rejecting God.".
Perfect example of your dishonesty. Jesus created the eternal torture of hell, not humans. He forces people there for thought crimes, non-believers are not allowed to choose not to go to hell. We are predestined by God to go to either heaven or hell. None of our thoughts, words, or actions can affect the final outcome. Ephesians
1:4-5, 11. Jesus will take "vengeance on them that know not God" by burning them forever "in flaming fire." 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
I said "In some ways Jesus was worse than the Nazis - the Nazis didn't eternally torture people for thought crimes."
Bad anonymous said "Nor did Jesus, which you should know since you claim to be so familiar with scripture.".
Another of your lies. Google Jesus and hell. Jesus was god, god sent people to hell.
Bad anonymous "The Nazis, btw, inflicted as much torture as they had the power to acomplish.".
Not true. Many people were simply hung or shot. They could have tortured people for a lifetime but there is no record of them ever attempting to do this, in that they weren't anywhere near as evil as your Jesus/god.
I said "The Church signed the concordat with Hitler and no Nazi was ever excomunicated from the church. Clearly the leader of Christianity fully supported and endorsed Hitler and his Christian views."
Bad anonymous replied "Are you talking about the Catholic Church? Problem is, they consider themselves a state and were trying to remain neutral to avoid politics.".
LOL, they most certainly were not. If they were trying to remain neutral they wouldn't have signed the concordat with Hitler and displayed Nazi paraphenalia throughout their churches:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
And even if it were true, remaining neutral towards one of the greatest evils of our time was no virtue - the Church never excommunicated Hitler or any of the Nazis - the least they could have done.
Bad anonymous said "As spineless as they may have been, no one endorsed Hitler's new theology."
Obviously the leaders of Christianity fully endorsed and supported Hitler and his views. If they hadn't they wouldn't have signed the concordat which legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world, marched in Nazi parades, honoured Hitler on his birthday, regularly given the Nazi salute in honour of hitler, flown the Nazi flag on their churchs, attended Nazi party rallies, and on and on and on.
One must not forget that Germany represented the most Christianized country in the world in the 1930s and 40s. Nazi Christian soldiers died as Protestants and Catholics and their grave markers testified to their religion.
"So am I correct to conclude that your view is that gay people are inherently less monogamous than straight people, regardless of the right to marry? If so, you are sadly the prisoner of your own prejudices."
Yeah, I guess I am.
Tell me, David, how do you explain the persistance of a disproportionately high HIV infection rate among gays?
new policy for Priya:
any time you can't limit your hateful hallucinations to four paragraphs or points, there won't be a response
LOL, that's a good one bad anonymous. What you're really saying is that anytime you can't conceive of a twisted way to deny reality there won't be a response.
Bad anonymous said "Tell me, David, how do you explain the persistance of a disproportionately high HIV infection rate among gays?".
Anytime a group is oppressed they are more likely to engage in self-destructive behaviors such as risky sex. As we've seen from Aunt Bea's refutation of your lies, those parts of the country that are the most anti-gay have the highest HIV infection rates while places that accept gays like Massachusetts and San-fransisco have the lowest infection rates.
Bad anonymous - how do you explain a disproportionately high HIV rate amongst black people? Do you believe that its destructive to be black?
So, bad anonymous, given your complaint about my response, are you similarly going to limit your responses to four paragraphs? You better start reforming yourself, in you response at June 01, 2009 10:12 PM there were 20 paragraphs. Bad anonymous says "Do as I say, not as I do".
"Anytime a group is oppressed they are more likely to engage in self-destructive behaviors such as risky sex."
So, then, you do agree that gays engage in more self-destructive behavior?
When can debate the reason but we agree on the fact, right?
"So, bad anonymous, given your complaint about my response, are you similarly going to limit your responses to four paragraphs?"
No, I have no need to do that because I generally show self-restraint.
You, on the other hand, need some restraint.
To put it in terms you'll feel comfortable with, think of it as a virtual straight jacket.
Oh, and if you feel you don't want to respond to a long post by me, please don't feel any obligation to do so.
Bad anonymous, you show no restraint or rational behavior.
Do you agree that blacks indulge in more self-destructive behavior?
In an honest search for the truth debaters must take turns asking and answering questions. I answered each of your questions and then in turn asked mine, so it is your moral obligation to answer these questions before we continue:
How do you explain a disproportionately high HIV rate amongst black people? Do you believe that its destructive to be black?
This is a economic problem. because many blacks are disadvantaged, they are at higher risk.
The disproportionality is nowhere near the levels seen by gays.
Here in D.C., btw, where we are extravagantly tolerant of homosexual deviance, the incidence of HIV infection is three times the epidemic level.
Your little rationalization about gay oppression doesn't fare well here.
Anon,
The rates have dropped, but it is strange to argue that a group that is not permitted the rights and responsibilities of marriage, and is thus marginalized, is as likely to have as high a percentage of stable relationships as a group that is given the respect and recognition of marriage.
One of the purposes of marriage is to provide a greater incentive and social pressure for monogamy. Your argument is absurd so long as gay people are not permitted to marry.
More to the point, you wish to keep marginalizing gay people in order to preserve your view that gay people are lesser human beings.
Let's look at this from another perspective. Let's say a particular ethnic group has a lower marriage percentage than other groups, and that that lower percentage disadvantages that group. Is the answer to say that people in that ethnic group should not be permitted to marry? Of course not. The answer to to find ways to encourage them to marry.
Marriage is a good, healthy thing. So why deprive gay couples of it?
Bad anonymous said "This is a economic problem. because many blacks are disadvantaged, they are at higher risk.".
Gays are disadvantaged as well. The typical gay or lesbian makes less than the typical heterosexual. Just as disadvantaging blacks leads to a higher HIV rate so does the oppression of gays lead to a similarly higher rate - the oppression may not be identical, but the results are often similar.
Bad anonymous said "The disproportionality is nowhere near the levels seen by gays.".
Not true. In some African countries the HIV rate amongst heterosexuals is much higher than it is amongst gays in the U.S. The rates amongst blacks in Africa are the highest of any group anywhere.
Bad anonymous said "Here in D.C., btw, where we are extravagantly tolerant of homosexual deviance, the incidence of HIV infection is three times the epidemic level.".
You haven't proven either contention and you're a renowned liar. Gays in D.C. are less tolerated than gays in Massachusetts or California which have lower rates of HIV infection. HIV rates in the southern states where gays are persecuted more are much higher.
Your fabrication about gays is disproven.
"Marriage is a good, healthy thing. So why deprive gay couples of it?"
Because if it includes gay realtionships, it's not marriage anymore.
Besides, why do you say marriage is good? Don't you think it's just a relatively recent development in human affairs and nothing special?
Priya
Gays don't have anything like the disadvantages of gays.
African rates of HIV result from widespread prostitution which is similar to the random and extensive promiscuity of gays.
Spreading Christianity and abstinence programs have lowered the HIV rates in Africa recently.
D.C. indeed was reporting an HIV rate of three times the epidemic level earlier this year. Look it up yourself. It was big news around here and I'm pretty sure Jim posted a few stupid comments about how it means nothing, nothing.
People just laugh when you say there is no proof D.C. is tolerant of gays.
When the new baseball stadium was built, the gay strip clubs that were demolished got special help from the mayor's office finding a place to relocate.
We've got gay teachers and principal, gay elected officials, gay restaurants, gay blogs...
the place is crawling with 'em.
This post has been removed by the author.
Further to bad anonymous's allegation that the HIV rate in DC is high, he's referring to the population as a whole and if there's any truth to it, its due to the fact that DC has a higher percentage of the population that's black and blacks have a higher HIV rate.
Once again in the ultimate hypocrisy bad anonymous claims that the higher HIV rate amongst gays is because there is something inherently wrong with being gay while denying that the same is true for blacks who have a higher HIV rate.
Anon complained:
“We've got gay teachers and principal, gay elected officials, gay restaurants, gay blogs...
the place is crawling with 'em.”
The tolerance afforded to gays in the area is nothing compared to the tolerance of promiscuous heterosexuals.
The “erotic services” section of Craigslist had been up for years quietly providing a cheap and easy avenue for promiscuous heterosexual men to meet with promiscuous heterosexual women. It would have probably continued to stay up for years more if it wasn’t for one particular heterosexual -- one by the name of Philip Markoff started killing the women he hooked up with. ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30314735/ ) Somehow he managed to spare his fiancée. Craigslist finally took that part of their site down, but only reluctantly, and under threat from a number of prosecutors.
Craiglist is just the tip of the iceberg catering to promiscuous heterosexuals though. For decades, every phonebook in every major and minor city in the country has had a listing for “erotic services.” I wonder how many politicians’ careers would have been spared if it hadn’t been so easy for heterosexual men to find ways to satisfy their non-marital sexual needs.
Promiscuous heterosexuals are everywhere. The place is crawling with them.
Peace,
Cynthia
Bad anonymous, you said you wouldn't respond to anything with more than four paragraphs so you'd better not respond to this.
David asked "Marriage is a good, healthy thing. So why deprive gay couples of it?"
Bad anonymous said "Because if it includes gay realtionships, it's not marriage anymore.".
Nonsense. Even if you believe gay marriages aren't marriages, every heterosexual marriage is completely unchanged by gays getting married and in the vast majority of cases marriage will continue to be exactly what you you believe it to be. And the fact of the matter is that a same sex marriage differs in no significant way from a heterosexual marriage.
Bad anonymous said "Besides, why do you say marriage is good? Don't you think it's just a relatively recent development in human affairs and nothing special?".
Ask any happy couple if they think their marriage is "nothing special" - none will agree with you. If you think marriage is good for a heterosexual couple it naturally follows that the same is true for a gay couple.
Bad anonymous said "Gays don't have anything like the disadvantages of gays [sic].".
I presume you meant blacks. That's laughably stupid of you. Gays experience far, far more social rejection than blacks do. Blacks are much farther along the path of social acceptance than gays. No one in their right mind disputes that. People were willing to elect a black president, there's no way Obama would have been elected if he was gay - poll after poll has demonstrated that.
Bad anonymous said "African rates of HIV result from widespread prostitution which is similar to the random and extensive promiscuity of gays.".
When 25% of the population in some African countries has HIV, its clearly not solely due to prostitution. And even if we accept your allegation as truth then your claim that there is a moral difference between the high HIV rate amongst gays and the high HIV rate amongst blacks is obviously false - you're willfully blind to reality.
Bad anonymous said "Spreading Christianity and abstinence programs have lowered the HIV rates in Africa recently.".
More of your rabid fantasies. The HIV rate has gone up in many African countries and only declined slightly in others. Abstinence only has been a failure in Africa as it has been elsewhere. In those countries where it has declined it is the widespread distribution of condoms that has resulted in the decline:
http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm
Bad anonymous said "D.C. indeed was reporting an HIV rate of three times the epidemic level earlier this year. Look it up yourself. It was big news around here and I'm pretty sure Jim posted a few stupid comments about how it means nothing, nothing.".
The onus is on the person making the assertion to back up their claims. Given your frequent propensity for making stuff up we can only assume you are lying yet again because it suits your agenda.
Bad anonymous said "People just laugh when you say there is no proof D.C. is tolerant of gays.".
You're a fool, a willfully stupid person. D.C. has a very large black population and blacks are proportionately far less accepting of gays. Once again your bigotry is based on fantasies.
Here's the kind of gay-tolerant crap we put up with here in DC.
From today's Post:
"A diverse coalition of more than 100 clergy gathered in a Southeast Washington church yesterday to show their support for same-sex marriages in the District.
"We declare that our faith calls us to affirm marriage equality for loving, same-sex couples," said the Rev. Dennis Wiley, pastor of the Covenant Baptist Church, as he stood in the pulpit of his church before religious leaders from all eight wards of the city.
The clergy, who have formed a group called D.C. Clergy United for Marriage and Equality, plan to challenge the efforts pushing for a referendum on same-sex marriage.
Last month, the D.C. Council voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, and some council members plan to introduce a bill to allow the marriages to be performed in the District.
Same-sex members of Congress have said they will attempt to block same-sex marriage from becoming legal in the District.
The group supporting same-sex marriage is composed of clergy from a wide range of Christian faiths and several rabbis .
The Rev. Robert Hardies, senior minister at All Souls Unitarian Church in the District, yesterday criticized the language some opponents of same-sex marriage have used in the debate.
He cited a prediction by council member Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) that same-sex marriage would result in "civil war" in the city.
"I believe it is wrong to use the language of war to speak about a matter of love," Hardies said, adding, "We can and we must have an open and robust conversation without tearing our community apart."
The Rev. Alton B. Pollard III, the dean of the divinity school at Howard University, evoked the message of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and his "Letter From Birmingham Jail," in which King challenged white ministers to be more tolerant of people of other races.
"Our movement toward a more perfect union also and necessarily includes the diverse expressions of human love," Pollard said. "Same-gender loving couples deserve our full and unfettered support to legally marry precisely because of love.""
Oh, brother.
OMG, "Anonymous"...can you believe it? Somebody you have a deep hatred for and a bias against might actually gain the same rights as you have? Yikes...give me the good old Nazi lifestyle!!
Post a Comment
<< Home